To think if you're married there's no risk to be a SAHM?

[southparkroses]

I keep reading on here that it's risky for the woman to give up work to look after children, but if you're married, isn't that protection enough?

but if the marriage is a strong one and family carefully planned then it's a small one

Don’t be silly now.

I’m bemused a lot of these posters blind belief it couldn’t possibly happen to them. That somehow you’ve made better choices. You only need to stumble upon the relationship board to see what utter rubbish people supposedly in committed relationships do to each other.

The only real security is the one you provide for yourself. I will be drumming this into both my girls for as long as I’m alive.

Not really. You give up a career so you are out of the workplace and not paying into a pension scheme. So no career progression. Working till you are 67 in a not well paid job won't be any fun for anybody.

but if the marriage is a strong one and family carefully planned then it's a small one

a genuine question, is it not harder to stay equal and maintain a strong marriage when one person spends 40 hours a week managing a team, dealing with difficult stuffs at work/boss, networking and the other have not worked for the last 10/20 years and spend 90% of her time on children and housework?

This is not to say that SAHM is not valuable work, it is hugely valuable of course and definitely harder than many office based work.

It just I would imagine it may be tricky to even maintain a friendship between two people in such circumstances, let alone a relationship, when you don't have much in common in terms of how you spend your days. Most people we are friends with, are very similar to us in terms of life experience and day to day life, that's why we are compatible with them.

@smurfette1818. Just my personal experience but the few long-term SAHPs I know aren’t at home doing housework most of the time. They serve on non-profit boards, are v. active in their communities, fundraise, etc. They’re the people with the time, money and energy to do this while other people are at work. Mind you, these are well-off people so they’d have cleaners as well.🤣

“marriage isn't a protection if you marry someone awful who is skilled at ignoring lawyers letters and hiding money”

Agreed - this is a big deal. It doesn’t matter what you’re entitled to on paper - if your husband has much deeper pockets than you and exploits that by stalling, ignoring correspondence and fighting trivial points for tactical reasons until your available money runs out, then you’re going to end up settling with much less than is fair. It happened to several of my mother’s friends.

smurfette1818

I've thought about this question a lot as well. I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea that being a SAHP automatically makes you dull and I think WOHMs who suggest that are unkind.

And yet, if your entire existence is limited to childcare, housework and the occasional park meet-up etc you can see how a gulf could emerge if your partner is managing a busy NHS department, a newspaper office or a chain of shops.

I think if you're smart and creative you can convert being a SAHP into a really interesting life with voluntary work/creative work/education once your children are less dependent on you and all power to you.

I think if you literally want to spend your time doing coffee mornings, housework and TV it is going to get harder and harder to connect with your hard-working spouse at the end of the day. Yes in theory your OH may appreciate coming home to a home-cooked meal and not having to worry about picking up the kids but it is going to mean your experiences are increasingly divergent.

I spoke to a lot of SAHM women who had thought they were low risk when I was a legal secretary. They were the ones divorcing, with husband's saying lets not get a Solicitor involved: while they hastily moved money to previously set up hidden accounts or tried to fabricate finances.

My DM and Dsis were and are sahm. Neither has sought to think about their future. Both married twice and the first DHs managed to get away with paying FA maintenance and building up good assets/pensions etc that DM and Dsis cannot access.

Their second DHs were/are poor earners. Neither has a good pension, my Dsis is not doing anything to plan for hers and it is too late for my DM.

In my DMs case, her current husband is sick, with no insurance or anything. They live in a privately rented house that my DM will not be able to afford when her DH passes away.

Both my DM and my Dsis look, from. My view, to have a future of struggle or will have to rely on others.

I couldn't stand the thought of being reliant on anyone. I am not lucky enough to have not ever been let down, so I was always self protective. I never gave up my career, I am paying into my pension pot and trying to get our mortgage clear. My DH unexpectedly is sick now, with a disease that usually affects much older people and every year I have him is a blessing but I can't rely on his earnings, and I am so pleased and relieved that I chose not to be a sahm and maintain my own financial independence. I felt horrible working when my DC were so little, but it is paying off now. When it is needed. I would never have predicted the future I and my DC face.

A life that is lived relying on the protection provided by others, even with the security of marriage, is not ever really safe. Sometimes it works out, but not every time and there are no guarantees.

“ it would be a shame if the fear of career uncertainty stopped women from becoming sahms if they were happily married and wanted to be more hands on with their children“

Posters haven’t cited ‘career uncertainty’, but things like personal financial and housing risks, particularly but not only in the event of divorce. Although it’s indeed probable that earnings will be negatively affected by extended time out of paid work.

Parents who WoH can be ‘hands on’ too!

I dont care if its risky, I would give up anything for the time with my child. You only get one life

Marriage doesn’t protect against premature death of the working spouse, either. Or a global pandemic potentially making the working spouse’s employment obsolete. Having two people working and developing their separate careers equally spreads that risk. Leaving work for,say, a decade and trying to get back to earn at a decent level when suddenly the need arises is not a position that many people would like to find themselves in so choose to keep working to some degree no matter how lovely and supportive and faithful their partner is.

Screwcorona

"I would give up anything for the time with my child. You only get one life".

This "you'll never get the time back" argument makes no sense to me. I think people just trot it out without thinking about it. It doesn't stack up:

1. Working parents also get time with their children. Arguably that time is likely to be of a higher quality because they haven't spent the entire day at home doing the same things.
2. After the age of five the child is out of the home for the bulk of the day anyway. Those people saying they would risk financial ruin in order to have an extra 3-4 years of being in the home with the child (because that's really all it is): does that really justify the sacrifice of all of your financial autonomy?
3. If you are at home with the child all the time a significant bulk of that time isn't actually spent engaging with the child anyway: its spent doing housework and domestic chores. The child is not going to automatically have a happier and more productive time at home watching you stack the washing machine/do the ironing/clean up their mess than it is in a childcare setting with other children and professionals.

I wish people would think before using this old cliché. It implies that WOHP have wilfully wasted their children's most valuable years just to satisfy their own urges and there's no consistency or logic to it.

Huge risk to your sanity

You only get one life
But that life goes well beyond the kids turning 18yo and having their own lives.

I have some sahm friends who desperately hang in to their adult kids because that's all they've known and constantly moan that after sacrificing their career, they are so disappointed how little attention they get from their kids.

It's all well saying it's better for kids to have a sahp, but it's a heavy weight to carry when they become so reliant on you for care, entertainment and finances when their parents divorced.

As well as the risks around divorce pp have described, the financial risks of only having one earner in a relationship are significant.

Amongst my SAHM friends, two of their high earner husbands have experienced redundancy and depression, making them unable to continue with their well paid careers. Another had a DH who died of cancer in his 40s.

I spoke to DH recently about quitting work because of Covid home schooling nightmares but he said he was worried about being the sole earner. I try and think that providing financial security for DC is also part of looking after them.

I would give up anything for the time with my child.

No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't give up safe, secure housing, food, water, utilities, etc.

@unmarkedbythat

I would give up anything for the time with my child.

No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't give up safe, secure housing, food, water, utilities, etc.

This. Thank you.

I am a LP and sole breadwinner so if I "gave up everything for time with my child" my child would starve. Not such a romantic prospect then, is it.

It’s a pragmatic approach to say that being a SAHM makes you financially vulnerable but makes be soooo angry that this is the case. We have an economy and a society that undervalues parenting and other unpaid care work to such an extent that women (and men!) are scared to take a break from paid employment and care for their families in the way they want to.

Why is being married 'protection'? Increasingly couples need two salaries to pay the mortgage. If you want/need a job to go back to and don't have one, that could be a problem.

What if you and your DH earn about the same? Your income would drop by 50% if you give up work for good. Can you manage that?

And what if you are the main earner?

I don't think it's a risk, and if it is it's one worth taking.
I was 23 when my DS was born, (in 2006) I had been a TA for 3 years so not a massive career to give up. I had 9 years at home with DS and when she came along DD. In 2015 when they were both well settled at school I decided it was time to go back to work. I applied for 1 job, part time TA in an infant school, got it I'm still there.
What I'm saying is the world is full of doom mongers but the vast majority of us aren't married to dickheads and will remain happily married to not dickheads for life.
(PS if he died I'd be better off financially, ork death in service and private life insurance,so never worried about that either.)

notaskingforafriend

I don't disagree with this: certainly caring is vastly undervalued and underpaid and certainly a lot of people work very long hours which are detrimental to family life.

But the reality is that if either parent decides to take a long-term break from paid work to care for children (ie longer than a couple of years) either a) the other parent or b) the state has to pick up the tab.

It's surely much more sensible and provides both parents with much more financial security and flexible for them both to contribute to the family financial pot and for them both to contribute domestically than for one partner to subsidise the other and the children indefinitely.

If you set up a dynamic where either partner is totally dependent on the other for income you're creating an inbuilt vulnerability which puts that partner in a very weak position in the event that the marriage breaks down (which it often does). Even if the marriage survives, the non-working partner is at a very significant disadvantage if they decide at any point that they want to do anything else with their life other than care for children.

Of course it would be lovely to spend all day every day with your children but there's a trade-off.

BoundlessRoots

"What I'm saying is the world is full of doom mongers but the vast majority of us aren't married to dickheads and will remain happily married to not dickheads for life."

Sorry but the stats don't back that up. Divorce rates have fallen slightly in recent years but according to ONS its over 40%

Planning your financial lifetime on the basis that you happen to be happy right now is just foolish. Of course your marriage is happy -- until its not.

Meanwhile as others have pointed out - its not just about whether your marriage fails. There are an infinite number of reasons you might want to go back to work even in the relative security of a happy marriage.

This isn't "doom-mongering" its just being an adult and taking control of your own life.

Its definitely less risky than when youre not married, but its still a risk.
I gave up having a career because DH has to travel lots for his job and i follow him around with the kids.
He is very well paid and i managed to secure myself a bit because of that. He keeps paying into my pension funds and I own our house outright by myself. So if he walks, i will have some money to start with. My family is quite wealthy and they wouldnt leave me hanging.
Of course it wouldnt be ideal, but knowing i wouldnt end up on the streets with nothing definitely helps. I dont think i would have chosen this lifestyle without these securities, because im an anxious person. Im very glad i had this option though and i really enjoy being home with the kids.

The decision shouldnt be made lightly though. Lots of things can happen to anyone. Its important to be as prepared as possible, even if you dont want to imagine the worst

No response from OP?