To ask if you think SAHMs are lazy?

[Camobag]

I know people say about it being valuable input to the children, equally valuable to working etc but I don’t think it is. And I’m a sahm.
I ask because dh is a high earner (over 100k) but I hardly have any money but I think this is fair as I am a sahp and he earns it. My friend said I work too in a different way but I think most people manage to work and raise children and keep a house.
Ideally I need to find a job now my youngest is in preschool for 15 hours but it’s proving difficult, mainly because covid is making life so hard. I’ve had my eldest dc off for two weeks already as part of a popped covid bubble. How am I ever going to go back to work?

You don’t need to clean or do as much housework if you are at work all day and kids are being cared for elsewhere. Having people at home daily makes a bloody awful mess and a constant one. It’s mentally difficult being a SAHM all day with young children and I found it very hard and thankless. Much preferred being at work and having a life but as people’s situations vary dramatically you can’t really make sweeping judgements, however that is the nature of MN!

'When you are home you can also do chores/housework/shopping during the day'

Not true! I'm a SAHM of a
1 and 2 yr old and the majority of housework takes place into the night when they finally go to sleep. I can't even unload and load the dishes when they are both around.

Interesting that nobody has said anything like that about the children of those high earning husbands, who are not even in the same house, as they are working 24/7

But they aren’t saying they work 59hours per week whilst being a f/t parent.

Everyone is a full time parent, whether your child is in paid/family childcare or whether you are with them all of the time. So yes, that poster is a full time parent, regardless of how much time they are with them. Their child is, presumably, in childcare for at least a good chunk of that, so they aren't working those hours as well as looking after their child; but you still have the same sort of things to do around work- cooking, cleaning, washing, helping with homework or whatever.

F/t parent without childcare thdn

Some PEOPLE are lazy, including those that work.

Anyway, lazy isn't a word that comes to mind when someone tells me they are a SAHM, the word vulnerable is far more appropriate. I just don't understand how women can give up their careers and independence to stay at home running around after children. What about when those children become more independent, you somehow have to get 'back out there', usually at a huge disadvantage to those who kept their careers.

I guess if you are someone who doesn't enjoy working then that is a risk you are willing to take.

You sound like you’re in a financially abusive relationship and it sounds like you are undervalued.

Put your foot down. You deserve respect and you deserve to be equal in this marriage.

@Oliversmumsarmy well I'd say SAHM, nothing wrong with that. But saying someone who works isn't a full time parent is ridiculous, and adds to the guilt narrative that stops some women wanting to go back to work.

I also don't think SAHMs are lazy, I do agree with the above poster that it can leave some vulnerable, but as long as they're aware of the risks and make an informed decision then good for them. We all have to make choices, most have positives and negatives, and most of us are just trying to do what we think is best for us and our families. I do think though that little ones do not remember the early years, I went back to work and as i had been back a few years was in a position to negotiate term time and school hours. I know not everyone has that option and it's very privelledged, but I have found being around is of more value than when they were very young, plus the financial stability is more than if I was scrambling for school hour jobs along with everyone else.

@SurreyHillsGirl I guess because I had children so I could be around them, I didn't like the idea of paying someone else to do that job and I couldn't afford to do so and I didn't like the idea of 'missing out' while they were babies. I was paid peanuts in the creative arts with no benefits and would have been working for essentially nothing anyway. It was a no brainer. I do feel like I have financial stability and my partner saw it (SAHM) as a very valuable occupation and was extremely happy i made that choice but as soon as they were at school I resumed working because I could and it made more sense. Part of the problem is that's it not valued as a 'job' in our society and it bloddy well should be, (as you so eloquently have inferred with your 'running around after children' remark). I believe it's extremely important and valuable contribution to society. I, personally, wanted to have more of a hand in their day to day lives.
Contrary to popular belief a lot of mothers I know are not just sitting around watching day time TV and flicking a duster about but are educating their kids and providing all sorts of sensory and exciting experiences that you would expect from nursery, if not more.

Admittedly I have a good balance because I work 3 days a wk & almost TTO but I enjoy my job so never considered not returning.
I don't have a problem with SAHPs although I think it's not ideal that it's often women put into that role because childcare costs are so prohibitive.

I don't think SAHPs are lazy either but I hate the narrative that women who chose to work & enjoy it are somehow less of a parent. My DH would undoubtedly have an easier life if I did everything at home but so would I. He was offered 2 jobs last yr, he took the one that offered more wfh & flexibility.

I do think though that little ones do not remember the early years,

By that logic we can skip toddler groups, Christmas, birthdays, holidays, travel, activities, swimming, ballet and everything else. All of these things enrich the lives of children. It is completely irrelevant if they remember doing them or not. What is important is they enjoy them at the time.

‘Give me a child until the age of seven and I will show you the man’ - Aristotle.

You are also assuming that all SAHP return to full time work once their children start school. This is not the case. Very often, they return to part time work because they are fully aware that their older children benefit as much from their presence, as they did when they were younger.

I guess because I had children so I could be around them, I didn't like the idea of paying someone else to do that job

Confused by what you mean by this. Do you mean that you personally wouldn’t have had children if you couldn’t have been around them all day? You wouldn’t have had them if you’d have had to put them into nursery?

I guess because I had children so I could be around them, I didn't like the idea of paying someone else to do that job and I couldn't afford to do so and I didn't like the idea of 'missing out' while they were babies.

@Tadpolesandfroglets so I had 14 months off with each one & then returned to work p/t. The youngest is now in preschool. Would you class that as being around my children? I have 11 wks off so am there for the vast majority of the school holidays & still feel I have strong hand in their day to day lives.

@Alongcameacat well yes, but when I mean is that they won't remember if you were around or not, and nursery or whatever isn't exactly a punishment. And yes many do return to part time low paid jobs that loads of people are scrambling for.

I think one big difference in these conversations is the decade you had your dc in.

I think for anyone having kids now it's more difficult then in the past to have a long break & return to a similar position/pay with the flexibility of fitting around school.

Sugarbeanie They won’t remember whether you were around or mot

You are missing the point. They won’t remember whether you brought them on holidays, to playgrounds, read books, cuddled them when they were upset, held their hand while going for a walk, taught them how to ride a bike, baked cupcakes with them, made handprints and a million other things. Should we all save ourselves all that time and not bother?

No, not everyone has extended family on tap to help with free childcare. mine are hundreds of miles away and my own parents still work full time and aren't retiring yet. Also me being at home means my husband can go wherever to earn as the childcare issue is taken care of.

@Alongcameacat no, but to me I was okay with someone else providing that for them during work hours in order to ensure I was about more as they grew up. And when home I did all of that too, just personal opinion and preference.

Also not all SAHMs particularly of high earners are around their dc all the time. My mum didn't work but we had au pairs, cleaners etc.

Op if he earns a minimum of 100k that's around £1135, based on him having the kids one night a week.

Plus the value of half the house.

Plus pension and his savings. If you got divorced it would all need to be declared.

You will be better off on your own. Unless he works for himself where they can and do fiddle their books.

I'd get some legal advice.

@Alongcameacat no, but to me I was okay with someone else providing that for them during work hours in order to ensure I was about more as they grew up.

That is your choice and the choice of many and the necessity of many. But....there are people, men and women, who weigh up the pros and cons and decide the financial and personal benefits of working outside the home is not the best option for them Many people really do not want to put their children into childcare from 7.30am until 6.30pm five days a week regardless of how much they earn.

So many factors influence people’s personal choices - including the flexibility of the work they do, their own upbringing and the household income.

Unfortunately the loss of one income takes away this choice from many. In other countries eg Estonia where paid parental leave is 85 weeks at full pay or Sweden which has 480 days parental leave means these choices aren’t financially driven,

@pollypork That's great .You seem happy with that choice so it sounds perfect for your family and works for you, that would not have worked for me. In an ideal world, everyone should have the choices and options to do what is right for their families but sadly this isn't true, many decisions are financially driven. I was just trying to make the point that it would be great if SAHP were more valued and not this perpetual insinuation that they are lazy or not contributing to society as I happen to think the opposite (this of course is a generalisation, some SAHP are crap at their job). It's ridiculous question to ask anyway because obviously some working parents are lazy f*ckers and can have it easy, entirely dependant and their chosen careers and circumstances. It's not a fait accompli that you are not lazy just because you are in F/T employment

Looking back on all the years I’ve been “at home,” I would say the most significant parts of this have actually been the most mundane - eg, being stuck in traffic jams on the way home from school and that’s when you have some of the most insightful conversations with your kids. Just the routine, humdrum really. It’s not about reeling off a list of what you “do” as such. You shouldn’t have to justify anything. Being a SAHM can’t be conceived of as a list of tasks. As they say, life happens while you’re busy doing other things.

I think this is something my DH has had to learn really, since he’s been around at home much more over the last year or so. He is always a very hyper person and needs to be seen to be “doing” a discernible “thing” - like “ok, weekend, do this trip / activity with the kids, job done, tick that box.” Not exactly performance parenting as such, but the real “work” of being at home is that a lot of what you do is not obvious to anyone else. Not even to yourself or the kids really, as that’s their norm and they take it for granted that you’re always around for them. Why wouldn’t they?

So people who say, “Well I do the hoovering and everything in the evenings” are spectacularly missing the point because nobody stays home because of housework! It’s absolutely not about that.

I do know, with my 4 kids, I would have felt unreasonable asking anyone else to do all the stuff I’ve done over the years. It comes instinctively to mums, but you can’t expect anyone else to care about all the details in the same way, or to just feel instinctively if there’s something amiss with your child, even if they can’t put it into words. That’s who I stayed at home with the 4 of them.

@Tadpolesandfroglets I don't think SAHPs are lazy & already said so. I just don't agree that the alternative is never seeing your dc.

I absolutely agree that financial constraints very much impact on the ability of both parents to work & this burden disproportionately falls on the mother. However my points were related to circumstances where there is one high earner, which is what I though the context of this thread was. Obviously they have less financial constraints.

Being a kept woman is all well and good until you get divorced!