Whats you opinion of "stay at home wives"

[strawberryperogi]

After reading another thread about SAHMs I am curious about what people would say about SAHWs, I know you will all say it should just be unemployed but if the person isn't looking for a job then are they really in that catagory?

Could you respect or be friends with a woman who didn't work and earn or at least look after her children?

Just curious!

Spontaneous I find that funny too. My Dh and i work as a team. We always have done. He has always said that the money he earns is really earned by both of us.

I think i have more independence in NOT working. When i was working i felt like i was owned by the LA (social worker) working a stressful job for hardly any money. I love having my emotional freedom and i am far more healthy in both mind and body than i have ever been.

windygallows - Indebted?

ApolloandDaphne Exactly. My marriage was a partnership, we were a team. The idea I was a kept woman is laughable.

I know numerous men who are supported by their spouse/partner thinking about it. High flying job or inheritance.

Couldn't be less bothered what my friends do tbh and certainly wouldn't judge anyone on it. Would definitely not want to be friends with anyone with such a narrow weird viewpoint that they look down on anyone that doesn't scurry off to an office 5 days a week. Urrgh.

For those who are unemployed and living off their husband’s income - would you have married them had they not earned enough to keep you?

Also, if your situations changed dramatically and you had to become the sole breadwinner - would you be happy to go to work all day every day to pay the bills whilst your husband refused to work so he could indulge in his hobbies/walk the dog/go for coffee/do fuck all?

It's all family money here, wherever it comes from. but it's amazing how often it comes from men.

You're not going to convince me here. Women are in a much more vulnerable position if they don't earn their own money. You can rebadge your husband's income as 'family money' or go on about not being a prisoner of work or a tax creator of the state, but one of the key tenets of 2nd wave feminism was that women need to have access to work/the labour market as having their own income gives them more freedom and autonomy and choice. I don't think that's wrong.

JelliedFeels When I first met my husband he was as poor as a church mouse. We were both living at home as we were just out of school. I was working full time as was he. When we got married my DH had just started his business, it was making a pittance. So yes, I married my husband where we had to save like crazy to furnish the house we had saved like crazy to put a deposit on to get a mortgage (in the 80's).

My situation will not change, actually I lie, it will improve due to age, pension provision etc. Had things been different, I would not have minded going to work, as mentioned above, I worked before marriage.

We don’t have family money. My husband stayed home with our son because he could afford too.

Obviously I would’ve paid for him to stay home if he needed it but I didn’t need to. He also did all the housework.

We don’t have Family money. We have individual accounts
Haha,i got severe mn derision when discussing that we don’t have family Money
My money most definitely is not His money. And his money isn’t my money

Jellied

We are a low income family, and even went off grid to support our lifestyle choice, at one stage, so Yes.
I couldn't have managed a climbing corporate though, I find them boring and soulless, tbh, but each to their own.

If things had changed dramatically, yes, I'd have been happy to work to pay bills. Although in our case as we are both frugal, no debt etc, we'd probably manage pt work rather than all day every day.

I don't know any sahp's who have refused to work so they could indulge in hobbies, what a weird suggestion . I do know plenty who have hobbies but that's because they have time, due to not working.
Do you want them to sit bored all day?

For those who are unemployed and living off their husband’s income - would you have married them had they not earned enough to keep you?

Yes. When DH and I married he was selling teles in Curry’s on £10,000 a year. I had a degree in chemical engineering and, on graduation, was earning double what he was. Our likely career trajectories at the time meant that I would probably have earned three times his salary for most of our careers. I didn’t care. That wasn’t why I married him.

Life changed. DH got into a ‘niche’ role which has become highly desirable. He has no qualifications beyond 4 GCSEs, but his last job offer involved him being head-hunted by a City financial institution. We never could have predicted that - his current role simply didn’t exist when we married.

We couldn’t have predicted my disability which is extremely limiting in terms of my employability. The best I could hope for now is a ‘sympathy vote’ job serving in the local council cafe. Nice use of a chemical engineering degree. Financially and as a family it wouldn’t be worth it.

Think of me what you will.

but one of the key tenets of 2nd wave feminism was that women need to have access to work/the labour market as having their own income gives them more freedom and autonomy and choice. I don't think that's wrong.

I don’t think it’s wrong either. It’s vital women have access and I don’t think we have equal access, looking at the slew of facilitated men vs women in high places.

I would qualify it though that on an individual level it’s a choice made by the individual family and each individual family’s circumstances are different

I lived for a while in Sweden and there the prevailing set up is both partners work. There are very few sahps. BUT they have the structures that make it possible - decent subsidised childcare and family friendly work legislation. In the UK, friends with two or more kids have had a few years out because they’d be making a big loss if they sent to childcare and they don’t have the kind of jobs they want to keep a foot in. Or they have to keep working because two people are usually needed for a mortgage.

The slice of society where one partner can just not work and the other earns megabucks is very small, just a couple of percent I’d imagine.

You're not going to convince me here. Women are in a much more vulnerable position if they don't earn their own money

This, 100%. I'm sure there are plenty of partnerships and marriages in which the partners are genuinely considered equal, regardless of respective earnings. And I'm pleased for those who make it work.

Sadly though it is very much open to abuse and women (since it's usually women) find it incredibly difficult to escape an unhappy/ abusive partnership if this is the route they have chosen. Being utterly reliant on another person is fraught with danger and not a situation I would be comfortable with either myself or for my daughter. I say this having recently supported dsis through escaping an abusive (financially, emotionally) marriage and seeing first hand how hard it's been for her to plan her escape with no earnings, no job and no ability to move out. She did it, she's incredibly strong, but it's been fraught with setbacks.

women need to have access to work/the labour market as having their own income gives them more freedom and autonomy and choice. I don't think that's wrong.

Nothing wrong with this, but why do you think a sahw/m wouldn't have access to work? We all do, some just choose not to take that opportunity.
As for freedom, some sahw/m's love the freedom that not working afford them, they value time over money. Choosing what you want to do and when sounds pretty autonomous to me. far more than having your day and time dictated to you by a boss.
I'd feel well trapped working in same job, day in, day out. Not much freedom and autonomy having to be at the same place at same time everyday, unless of course you have a pre determined holiday.

It's pretty shallow to choose your friends according to occupation

Choosing what you want to do and when sounds pretty autonomous to me.

but gillybeanz the key aspect of my argument was having YOUR OWN money. You can't really claim to be autonomous when you're taking someone else's money, which is really what it comes down to. It's a false sort of 'freedom.'

gillybeanz I totally agree. I could have gone to work at any time of my choosing. I was not forced to be a SAHW. I did it to help my husband and in the long run it worked out in a way that made sure we could help our children even as adults. It was tough with one wage at first, but our marriage was solid and my DH determination strong. Between us we managed to get a one man operation into a thriving business employing others. It was sold as a going concern when DH died so is continuing to employ others and provide the service. I'm proud of what we did in all respects.

There are two ‘great commandments’ of MN wisdom that come up time and again:

1. Women must be financially independent. If not, they are destroyers of feminism blahdee blah

2. Benefits are only for the most needy in society. Unless in dire need, don’t claim.

So, here’s my dilemma.... I can only achieve one of these.

Having paid my NI and pension contributions, I am entitled to claim pension/disability benefits which are non means tested (both taxpayer funded as puclic sector pension). I can therefore achieve commandment 1 by maintaining financial independence from high-earning DH. HOWEVER, I can only achieve commandment 2 by foregoing commandment 1.

I can’t win.

So long and thanks for all the judgment...

why do you think a sahw/m wouldn't have access to work? We all do, some just choose not to take that opportunity

You may have access to it, but that doesn't mean an employer will be prepared to retrain and reskill someone who has taken years out of employment. Not saying that's right, but it is a reality. And those women who do find work will invariably take a huge financial hit as a result - which may not be an issue if you decide to go back to work and can afford to due to your partner's income, but most definitely is an issue if you're forced to return to work due to relationship breakdown, bereavement or whatever.

It's not someone else's money. It's our money

I was coming to say the same Lethaldrizzle. The money that comes into our house is our money. We have never had separate money.

Gosh, my dh has never looked at it as his money because he has a family
If others want to look at it like this, then fine and working ft is probably best for them, especially if their dh agrees.

As for not being able to find work, well obviously someone isn't going to walk into a high paid career after time out.
A friend works in a call centre after 10 years out, took her an hour to get the job and with commission and bonus takes home 30k per year
I'm pt and no stress so just min wage no bonus, different CC.
I got my job within the hour.
Plenty of pt/ft jobs if you aren't too picky.

Ours in the sense only one person is the recipient of the salary for work done
The other is reliant on goodwill of the salaried partner to fund them doing hobbies

"For those who are unemployed and living off their husband’s income - would you have married them had they not earned enough to keep you?"

What a nonsense question! I met DH at uni. He had a few years in the military. Then went into banking. Then started his own company in his 30s, which he sold in his mid 40s. Of course I would have married him, even if he had stayed in the marines and been posted god knows where.

As for you comment that SAHM / SAHW are like children living off their father, this just demonstrates that you have no idea, frankly.

You are aware that in the vast majority of marriages, one person will earn more than the other? This tends to be the man, after children come along. If, like most couples, you think of all money as family money, then the higher earner is subsidising the other anyway, to a greater or lesser extent.

If I was working now, any money I earned would be negligible within the context of our overall financial situation. So my time is more valued at home. I have more energy for the kids and everything else.

Perhaps you're one of those people who maintains separate finances to your husband, all in the name of "independence." I find it staggering that couples can commit to having children together, but can't bring themselves to share their finances. But each to their own.

My DH and I also met at uni. We didn't have two beans when we met and we didn't have much money in the early days of our marriage. To suggest I was some sort of gold digger is hilarious. We took vows of for richer and for poorer and we have stuck by those vows.