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?

IWannaSeeHowItEnds That pattern is what I see in the SAHMs amongst my friends too. It makes total sense to me.

It turns out I have a ton more stuff to say about this. I hope the kids can manage without me (I actually see one of my key responsibilities as a SAHM as ensuring that they're not too well entertained and they have to rely on themselves - yes that's right, even when I am in charge of them I try to do nothing!) because this is going to be long.

I get particularly irritated by the "letting the side down" arguments. These usually take the form of unfeminist/bad feminist or else "what example are you setting your kids." I'll start with the second one. I'm not just a woman and a feminist, I'm also a child of post industrial working class Scotland, and I saw as a child that the men who defined themselves through their trades found it very difficult to adjust to redundancy and career change, while the women, who'd mostly taken ad hoc part time jobs around childcare or simply stayed at home while their kids were young, had a wider variety of things in their lives from which to draw their sense of self (and probably, let's be honest, a lower sense of their own importance all together) and suffered less when there was redundancy, and retained enough flexibility to be able to make good use of opportunities that came in later life/outside their first career. That was all ticking away for me when I worked in the pharma industry and saw on average about 5% of my colleagues being made redundant every 2 years or so, and it definitely informed my decision to chuck my job and go back to looking after my kids full time when the only work I could get was 12 hours a day corporate hellhole type stuff. A job like that won't love you back. If my kids see my experience and learn that work isn't the only thing from which you can derive self esteem, I will be very happy about that, specially in the new world of the gig economy.

The bad feminism charge also gets on my tits. Part of feminism is supposed to be the recognition of the fact that our societies are currently structured in such a way as to narrow the options and opportunities for women. Going out to work doesn't actually change that, not unless you're changing perceptions of what it means to be a worker. I mean, if you're out there proving that women can do a job as well as men that's one thing, but the industries I worked in, maybe I was just lucky, but I don't think anyone was in any doubt any more that women are equally as talented as men. It can be effective if you're visibly taking time to do parenting while holding down a job - I had an excellent boss who used to do her 37.5 hours flat and would encourage us to do the same - but that's like the opposite of the sort of lean in philosophy that seemed to be more common in my workplaces, a sort of Stakhanovite effort to make it look as though the demands of the modern workplace are unproblematic to the parents of young children that only perpetuates the problem ("Sally from HR manages to parent twins and get all her emails answered with a same day turnaround so why can't you?) And actually, in terms of being that example of the employee or manager not afraid to go home on time, it would be far more powerful if the blokes were doing it. So I don't see that as being the massive driver of change that some people seem to think it is.
I also think that criticising SAHMs for the choices they make is profoundly anti-feminist. First of all because simply, we have enough freedom taken off us by the patriarchy, and we don't need to be shaming women into reducing their options still further. But also, by shaming us and framing our decision as a frivolity and laziness, they're whitewashing the situation of mothers, minimising the amount of work it takes to look after a child and a home and editing out all the resources (under or unpaid female labour from nurseries or grandparents, and flexible and secure work, for starters) a family needs to be able to free both parents to go out to work. You know if it was easy for everyone, why would we still have feminism? Why would we need it?

zsazajuju
Your comment about the people who care for your children not being worth half of your earnings is certainly insightful into your priorities and how you view those who shape the minds of the next generation.
During the early years the brain is essentially being built, wiring up. Each response, each rule, boundary, demonstration of kindness (or not), warmth (or not), each new experience that the child has shapes their brain, their view of others and the world, therefore a large part of their future.
But the people who are doing the majority of this for your children, while you are working, aren’t even worth half your earnings.

Not a bash at you working. I work myself. It’s about the lowly status of those who do look after their own children or choose (and have the patience) to look after others children as their career choice that annoys me.

When I am a sahm, the hours I do practically add up to the same as his anyway - as I do all house/child related stuff 7 days a week as well as earlier mornings 7 days a week etc and house stuff during the week days. Weekends are his entirely. It kinda evens out. But If I do less hours than him then I offer him sexual favours to make it fair

YABVU. I see equally as many posts about working mums along the lines of:

• I couldn't leave MY child with complete strangers
• I am a 'Full time' Mum (WTF? are working Mum's somehow not??)
• Snide jibes such as ' personally would rather look after my children then pay someone else to do that job '

and the following:

'But also, by shaming us and framing our decision as a frivolity and laziness, they're whitewashing the situation of mothers, minimising the amount of work it takes to look after a child and a home and editing out all the resources' - erm working mothers (AND fathers!) know exactly how much work there is to do in the home - they do it too you know!!

At the end of the day you are no more a feminist if you stay at home than if you go out to work and the debates on mumsnet about it can get equally vitriolic from both sides.

@toomuchtooold what an excellent, thought-provoking post, thank you. What I mainly conclude from this thread is that anyone judgemental and closed-minded about either being a sahm or a wohm is not being as thoughtful, intelligent and fair-minded as those who take a more balanced approach...as in life generally.

Great post Tooteary.

@ConstantCraving
'But also, by shaming us and framing our decision as a frivolity and laziness, they're whitewashing the situation of mothers, minimising the amount of work it takes to look after a child and a home and editing out all the resources' - erm working mothers (AND fathers!) know exactly how much work there is to do in the home - they do it too you know!!
Right so you are able to simultaneously work and do everything a SAHP does? Unless you're working shifts and operating on an unhealthy level of sleep I would challenge how you are physically able to look after your non school age children, and provide them with with stimulation theu require as well as meet their basic physical needs. You do also know having kids at home creates more housework. Please don't try and diminish the role of SAHMs

I'm a SAHW. By choice. I'm educated, well grounded and very very happy.

According to MN, I should be tarred, feathered, paraded through the streets and lined up in a shooting range as I'm highly offensive to working women . I truly don't understand why it touches such a nerve in others.

I agree op. Ive seen this a lot.

Childcare is expensive.
Wrap around care is expensive.
Holiday care is unbelievably expensive.

I could have worked and my income may just have covered wrap around school care, or full time nursery when they were younger. At the time when we had children my husband's salary was good but for where we live not amazing.

My husband earned more then me though and his job is a life time security type job, mine is faced redundancy 3 times in 5 years.

Made sense for him to work and me not to. I couldn't afford holiday childcare. We get zero in benefits that would help with that. His job by it's nature is very inflexible, as he's moved through the ranks it's not unusual for an incident to change his typical 10 hour day (with an hours commute each way) to a 24 hour + day. It's not like he can up and leave if this occurs. Therefore having a parent around for school drop off/pick ups, snow days, heating broke down days, sick days made sense for us.

I'm looking into work now. Still can't afford holiday care for the kids here though (£28 per day X 3 children) so has to be term time. Those jobs are low paid. Meaning I can barely afford wrap around care (£20 per child per day). Probably won't end up working.

Meh, guess I'll sit with my boxsets on tv, and a cuppa and be a mooch on society then. Except for my evening work where I teach other people's children for free but hey ho.

@ tootoary - is it? The fact that I wouldn’t give half my worldly goods to my nanny means I don’t value what she does? What rubbish! I pay her fairly.

That’s just more working mum shaming - I make sure my dcs have good care when I am not there. There’s no need for me to be there 24/7. I am a single parent and need to pay the bills (including childcare). Your comments on how every single interaction shapes their brain is aimed to shame me and the other women who go to work. Give it a rest. You want to be a sahp - fine. But there is nothing wrong with good paid childcare. Particularly as children get a little older they need the socialisation it involves.

My youngest had a nanny for 2 years who she loved. We moved and about 2 years later she doesn’t even remember her. Couldn’t tell me who she was in a photo. Babies and toddlers need to be well cared for but don’t need their mothers 24/7.

And tootary what is your insight into my priorities that I don’t pay my nanny half my salary? That I don’t care for my child? That I don’t value my child, I rather work (doesn’t that in some way maybe benefit my child given that I am the sole breadwinner?).

Aside from the nasty comments, things like childcare has an economic value. I pay my nanny fairly but not half my salary. If I earned less maybe I’d pay her more than half my salary but i don’t.

So yes , be a sahp if you like. But as I was saying I don’t think that necessarily means you earned half the assets and should get half on divorce. Just saying.

I certainly value my child and good childcare. I work for many reasons but one central reason is to benefit my dcs.

No. The stuff about interaction shaping their brain was saying childcare is valuable work.

She said nothing about mothers or fathers. She was talking about early years education.

Zsazajuju read my post again I’m not a sahm I work.... so who am I trying to shame exactly? Myself.
It really is true that interactions with caregivers shape a baby’s brain. You can’t argue with biology and that’s how an infants brain develops.

I do think SAHMS have wasted their education, particularly if their parents paid for a private one or if they have good degrees. I also find it doesn’t really help women much in the fight for equality- giving it all up to support their man and all that - but it’s their choice and until asked on this thread today, I have not voiced my opinion about this. Whether SAHM and Working Mums - we do need to do better at raising our kids - I mean, where do all of these masochistic, chauvinist men grow up?

My point stands that shaping the future generation, is valuable work.

Why is it that some childcare workers are on minimum wage or less in some of these nursery’s and their apprenticeship scheme. It’s wrong and poor childcare provided by inexperienced and under supervised, over worked staff in some settings has the potential to be very harmful.
I have limited the time ds spends in nursery for this reason. And I did my homework on the nursery that he attends to make sure he was getting good quality care.
I’ve lost money through reducing hours and condensing hours/flexi working , missed out on promotion because of working arrangements etc etc.
But I don’t value my worth on the tax I pay. I value my worth on doing the best for my family.
As I don’t doubt most women are doing the best for theirs. But my priority is my son. Not my tax contributions or pay packet.

TBH I have seen the opposite more often. Working mothers called part-time mothers, told that if they were prepared to do without two holidays a year and new cars they could afford to stay at home with their children (ha ha! I wish), that they personally (the poster) would never go out to work and leave their children with strangers.

But that was all a few years ago - perhaps the pendulum has swung!

It's just real nice to pick my kids up from school. Shoot me!

I judge some SAHM's, like my exe's Mom whose youngest child is 33 (Not living at home even) and she's still a SAHM. 🤣

She is intelligent, confident, not lazy, has no mental or physical health problems, and has a bachelor's degree from a good university. So I have no idea why she never started working again.

TBH I have seen the opposite more often. Working mothers called part-time mothers, told that if they were prepared to do without two holidays a year and new cars they could afford to stay at home with their children
This has been my experience too, whereas actually it’s the DC insisting on needing to eat everyday that swings it

When I was a wohm it was easier to brush off the comments because I got status and respect for the professional role I did. Now I mainly sah it cuts when other women make out I’m lazy, selfish, spoiled, a bad role model, not a feminist, don’t deserve anything if my dh divorces me, think I’m summat when I’m nowt etc etc because there is not that external status and respect of being a sahm. I’m the same person.

I’ve seen a couple of returnship programmes recently so it’s good that workplaces aren’t writing us all off as above. Hopefully the roles will cover childcare costs (£18k cash here for mine full time )

I think feminism - and the cost of living - have evolved to the point where women are expected to have a career as well as having children, but society has not evolved to facilitate this.

Society has not evolved to expect men to do half the childcare and half the housework.

Society has not evolved to make it normal for men to be stay at home parents or work part-time.

Society has not evolved to ensure that all families can access high quality, affordable childcare so that a woman on an average wage with two small children can actually afford to go back to work if she wants to.

Because of this we have some women who are stay at home mums (either out of choice or because the cost of childcare makes returning to work on a modest salary prohibitive), who are made to feel not good enough because they don't have a high powered career and aren't "contributing to society" or "setting a good example to their daughters". And then on the other side we have women who work (either out of choice or because their earnings do exceed the cost of childcare and the way they have arranged their family finances means she feels she can't afford not to work, or the nature of her career means that if she stops even temporarily she risks losing it for good), who are made to feel not good enough because because they are "letting someone else raise their children" and putting their own "selfishness" and "desire for money" ahead of their children's welfare.

I think because society makes mothers feel bad for staying at home and bad for working, that makes a lot of women feel defensive about their own choice (or their own situation, if they aren't really in it out of choice) and they start attacking each other.

Instead of attacking each other, we should be fighting against the society we live in that presents us with these difficult choices and then blames us for the choices we make, whilst the men in our lives are by and large held unaccountable.