“He wouldn’t be where he is if I hadn’t sacrificed my career”

[BooFuckingHoo2]

I am expecting a flaming for this .

AIBU to think this is often untrue? I know many men with stay at home wives and kids who, in all honesty, whilst happy to have kids (because the wife does all the wifework) would probably have been equally happy with either no kids or extensive wraparound childcare and an equally high earning wife.

I often see it trotted out on here “I sacrificed my career to look after our children” - but the for the majority of women (aside from some exceptions e.g. husband working abroad) I’m sure it was a welcome choice and not something they were strong armed into. In my experience (unless childcare costs eclipse the wife’s salary) the husband is usually indifferent (aside from the wankers who want a trophy wife) as to whether the wife works or not.

Equally “he wouldn’t be where he is in his career if it wasn’t for me”. I’m sure there’s a small minority of women who’ve accelerated their husbands career but I think for most, they’d have been the same with or without their wife, although granted possibly with no children or higher childcare costs.

AIBU?

www.forbes.com/sites/jackmccullough/2019/12/09/the-psychopathic-ceo/?sh=70892dac791e

So the woman sacrifices her career due to financial reasons which allows the man to further progress his.

Sacrifice...

Let me be clear: if you freely chose to SAH and didn't have any desire to work and don't consider it to be a sacrifice, then I'm not talking about you.

I did freely choose to stay at home. I didn't have any desire to work given the circumstances. My D.C. was diagnosed with significant SEN and I felt I was the best placed to advocate and support them due to me having a degree specialising in linguistics and early years education. I did give up future prospects. That was a sacrifice but didn't feel like one at the time, it just felt necessary. My efforts have been successful, my D.C. has achieved very well with my concentrated support early on. They got As and Bs in their GCSEs and expect to achieve similar at A Level then go onto university. Since then I have had cancer and am still not in paid employment, not sure how employable I am now, really.

“@rathertalktothecats are you going to elaborate what some women are bitter about?”

Do you actually need to ask? It’s blatantly obvious that some women are bitter about their own lives. I don’t know why. It’s sad really.

If I, as a woman who doesn’t work, started a thread with some spurious statement... I don’t know, like... “I am setting such a fine example to women as a working mum...” - (not even based on a particular incident, just something that I, in my wisdom, have decided is a widely-held belief among working mums); I would come across as bitter and / or with a chip on my shoulder. What a stupid thread that would be. Equally stupid to this one.

I disagree. My first post said that 2 full on careers with young dc is very difficult so I'm not sure how I'm trying to make it a loaded debate. I've also said I work p/t & after a 15 month mat leave I went back 2 days initially & my mum was only ever a SAHM so I don't think there is no value in being a SAHM. It's just not for me. I like my job, I like my colleagues & even if I won 100m tmw I would still work in some capacity (my own business). However I recognise that there are factors & have said as such that make it easier for me eg short commute, mum around the corner, both dh & I have flexi & can wfh, lots of holiday etc.

Some of us have to work because there isn't a man in the picture.
I had the choice of going onto benefits and living in some horrible council flat with my son with no future or having a career which enabled us to have a better life and our own home.
I chose the latter.
There has never been a man in my life who has been any good whatsoever, never mind a decent provider.

pensivepigeon
I didn't say you did. It's a general observation.

The whole situation is complex, but do you not think as women we should be willing to own the value of being a SAHP because someone wants to be, and accurately describe the fact that their husband has chosen to prioritise his career?

What's wrong with saying "I chose to be a SAHP because I want to and DH earns enough that we can afford the set up that works for us" or "We've chosen a SAHP/WOHP set up because DH's field has loads of travel and I am happy to have this time"?

Why does it have to be more rubbish about it being some big sacrifice (which I only really here on here) and the man would only be successful because someone runs the home?

Is it really that bad to point out that for many people SAHP/WOHP is a choice they have made and it's a choice they are happy with?

There seems to be an attitude at the moment where suggesting women challenge things that shaft us is blaming women, or suggesting women take a stand on men being feckless is saying they are responsible for men's behaviour, in fact anything where women speak about the whole pile of shit that promotes male privilege gets a load of defensive responses from other women telling us to be quiet because NAMALT don't you know, and how any discussion of big issues is irrelevant because their husband is a good'un.

Do you actually need to ask? It’s blatantly obvious that some women are bitter about their own lives. I don’t know why. It’s sad really.

saying someone is bitter because they disagree with a SAHM is no different then calling a SAHM lazy. Both stupid!

You have called this thread stupid, irrelevant & bollocks (I think). Why are you on it then?

@jillypill - I entirely agree that a lot of powerful, successful people are probably psychopaths. We only have to look at a few of our world leaders, the banking crisis, and people like Philip Green, Robert Maxwell, and Rupert Murdoch to believe that.

jillypill
I'd go further.
Telling women that they are bitter for wanting to discuss an issue that affects women is just another silly way to put women in their box.
It's the same principle as the 'but you're jealous' argument.

Both are done to suggest there's a personal failing on behalf of those discussing in an attempt to discredit discussion of wider topics.

Plenty of men are psychopaths, by the way. I’m sure there are plenty of psychopaths on UC. They come in all guises and all walks of life.

If I think now, I can think of maybe 100 men who are what you would term very wealthy (DH’s friends / associates, husbands of my friends over the years, contacts through the various schools, neighbours, etc). Off the top of my head, I can only think of two who have lost their marriages as a result of their careers. Both of these are on the Asperger spectrum. Yes, many have workaholic tendencies, for sure, but I’m not sure that refers than psychopathic. I would describe DH as an extreme workaholic, to be fair, and yes, it does take a certain type of partner to cope with a workaholic. But again, it is what it is. If it wasn’t that, it would no doubt be something else.

There seems to be an attitude at the moment where suggesting women challenge things that shaft us is blaming women, or suggesting women take a stand on men being feckless is saying they are responsible for men's behaviour, in fact anything where women speak about the whole pile of shit that promotes male privilege gets a load of defensive responses from other women telling us to be quiet because NAMALT don't you know, and how any discussion of big issues is irrelevant because their husband is a good'un.

However, people also use this argument to shut down conversation calling them out for being unfairly judgmental over other people's decisions.

Why does it have to be more rubbish about it being some big sacrifice (which I only really here on here) and the man would only be successful because someone runs the home?

It's not rubbish, it's simply fact within a climate of inflexible working conditions, inadequate, expensive childcare and a gender pay gap.

Plenty of men are psychopaths, by the way.

Seriously does anyone not know this? However we were talking about a certain section of men.

Some cats are psychopaths too!

Jillypill - you are either being disingenuous or a little naive in trying to conflate two very separate issues. A discussion about systematic barriers to work for women is one thing, but it is not the same discussion as a thread such as this which is another thinly-veiled attempt at SAHM bashing. Give over.

What are you taking about?

talking

However, people also use this argument to shut down conversation calling them out for being unfairly judgmental over other people's decisions
There's a huge difference between:

• challenging the idea of claiming SAHP are making huge sacrifices because their poor husbands couldn't manage his job without them (especially when many of these men aren't in jobs that are genuinely incompatible with family life and women in these lines of work do manage)
• making rude and arsey comments about someone's decision to be a SAHP

The second is uncalled for and rude. The former is totally valid.

It's not rubbish, it's simply fact within a climate of inflexible working conditions, inadequate, expensive childcare and a gender pay gap
It is rubbish.
Those factors are very real and I 100% agree with you on them. But women are, largely, making the choice if they SAH. It's a choice in an environment where we've been systematically disadvantaged, but it doesn't do us any favours to say 'oh well, I guess this is what has to be for men to have their careers'
We can't start denying agency when it suits, and it does nobody any favours when those who have freely chosen to stay at home try to pretend they had no choice. The least we can do is shift the focus away from poor men who apparently can't manage their job and family life.

Wouldn't it be more powerful to hear women say:
I'm a SAHP because I want to and it is a totally valid decision.
I'm a SAHP by circumstance because in our area we couldn't find appropriate childcare and my husband's work refused his reasonable requests for flexible working (assuming he did). I'd like to return to work once we find a solution because right now I'm having to give up my career, which I didn't want to do.
I'm a SAHP because my husband wants to prioritise his career and I am happy to be at home as it suits our family.

You are very naive if you actually believe the OP was trying to engage in any meaningful debate about systematic barriers to women in the workplace or societal expectations about women’s roles.

When people post like this, it is always with an agenda and they are looking for confirmation bias. So to summarise the OP and the response he / she was looking for here was -

“SAHMs contribute nothing do they? They are lazy, Even their DH’s don’t value them... AIBU?

MN chorus - “blah blah blah”

not the same discussion as a thread such as this which is another thinly-veiled attempt at SAHM bashing.

I read it as criticising SAHMs for saying they had to be SAHMs cause of DHs big/inflexible job not because they are SAHMs & as a criticism of some of these men.

I do find the idea that many jobs done by fathers have to be facilitated by mothers at home annoying. Some undoubtedly do require someone at home though just not all.

I also think it's a bit outdated, Im in my 30s & my girlfriends include a GP, teacher, analyst, accountant, surgeon, HR honcho, Marketing whizz, detective, lawyer, writer, etc. The vast majority (90%) of them work & everyone copes fine.

You could put it this way, @jillypill - you don’t start an honest, polite debate about the role of SAHM in society with a claim that men don’t need them and most of them wanted it that way, anyway. You start a debate that way if you want to start a bunfight and to leave the needs and wants of families as a whole out of it (to the extent of arguing that men don’t need families, either).

Says you @Walkaround.

Not just me, @jillypill.

A poster upthread said it was be a trailing spouse or break up the family so clearly some of these men do exist. Others mentioned ex husbands who refused to do any heavy lifting.
My friend who is going through a bad divorce is having to cope with the fact her DH decided that it was really hard being a father & it wasn't what he signed up for & he thinks he would be a better dad if he could concentrate on work & see the kids every other weekend.

You are very naive if you actually believe the OP was trying to engage in any meaningful debate about systematic barriers to women in the workplace or societal expectations about women’s roles
I took it as they are challenging the age old line of claiming to be SAHP because DH's job is so important and he'd not be successful without them.

It's the argument they were challenging, not the act of staying at home.

I have an issue with the 'I make DH's career possible argument' because for the few where that is genuinely the case, I think there's a lot of men who are quite selective in their ability to do home things and the last thing we need is women reinforcing it.

I've worked in places where men have a partner being a SAHP, but then there's dozens of women in the same or similar roles who also have a working husband. At lunch, there's lots of men sat around chatting, and there's always some of them 'working' late but on the nights I work late to make the most of DC's time at nursery there's a huge amount of male social time and low productivity.

It makes me cynical as to how many of these men magically find themselves coming home from work at 6PM after their wives/partners have done all the house and childcare all day but claim to their wives that they couldn't do the pick up, couldn't be home to cook dinner, couldn't be back for bath time etc because they were 'working'.