Why is MN so horrible to SAHMs?

[Sweak]

I'm sure this will go down like a lead balloon, but it's been bothering me.

Every post I see written by a sahm, no matter what her issue is, has at least 5 posters telling her she must get a job Or implying she's lazy and even worse 'contributes nothing.'

Lots of posts under the guise of telling women they need to protect themselves financially are criticising this choice (not always but many). I would never dream of criticising a mother for working so why is it acceptable to criticise those who decide to stay at home to be with their children? (I claim zero benefits fyi in case that's a suggestion). I accept that a very very long period out of work will leave you vulnerable if you split due pension, but 5 years or so? The pre school years...I don't think so. Obviously being a sahp is only going to work if you have a decent partner who shares income.

And finally so many posters implying that by being a sahm you are making it basically impossible to be employable ever again unless you run the PTA!

Full disclosure...I'm a sahm, and have been for four years, but I've decided to return to work. I've secured a job for sept (teacher), and got the second job I had an interview for so the suggestion sahm are making themselves unemployable for having a few years out doesn't ring true! However due to MN my confidence about getting a job was so low.

Can't we just support each others choices in life even if they differ to our own?

I think SAHMs, in the broadest sense, fall into several categories -

1. Women with children with SEN. So constantly reminding them they are “financially vulnerable” is in very poor taste.

2. Women who are SAH for a set period eg. pre-school years. Constantly telling them they are financially vulnerable is odious and patronising because they have factored this risk in.

3. Women who are married to extremely wealthy men. “Oh but they’re not typical.” Well no, but if you look at the family set-ups of the top earning men in this country, there will still be a much higher proportion of SAHMs than for those in middle to low incomes. There are parts of London with a high concentration of such families and where being a SAHM is the norm. If your kids are in the prep schools in such areas, nearly all women will be SAH. Money buys this choice basically. Not representative nationally, but if you are talking about SAHMs specifically, here they are - hundreds of thousands of women and their lives are as real as anyone else’s. So telling these women they are financially vulnerable is a bit of a joke. Even if the DH leaves them, they would hardly be struggling in terms of national living standards, trust me on that. They may be only a small percentage of women nationally, but the point is, it constitutes a significant proportion of (long term) SAHMs. They don’t need MN “concern.”

I think what happens is, people project their own circumstances - “Well think god I wasn’t SAH because when my DH left me ...” This is totally understandable, but also not relevant to most SAHMs reading due to points 1,2 or 3 above. Or someone thinks of a neighbour they knew or whatever and based their entire view of SAHMs on one or two scenarios.

In summary, this is the Internet and you have no idea who you are taking to and what their financial security is, SAHM or not. Yes, YOU might have been more financially vulnerable without a job, but YOU are not the SAHMs you are talking to. Different finances, different security, different husband, different skill set /opportunities and different kids.

If a poster actually posts about feeling financially vulnerable and happens to be a SAHM, then by all means give her advice. Just stop giving patronising advice where it’s uncalled for because it comes across as bizarre, to be honest. That’s what I would ask.

I would add that on a basic level, if you outsource the responsibility for your (and your offspring’s) very survival to someone else, be that a partner, a family member or the state, then I suppose it’s going against the fundamental idea that adults are responsible for themselves. So it can attract raised eyebrows from some.

Now, the patriarchy makes everything more difficult for women, so in reality, individual choices are far more nuanced than this.

@paloma10

I think SAHMs, in the broadest sense, fall into several categories -

1. Women with children with SEN. So constantly reminding them they are “financially vulnerable” is in very poor taste.

2. Women who are SAH for a set period eg. pre-school years. Constantly telling them they are financially vulnerable is odious and patronising because they have factored this risk in.

3. Women who are married to extremely wealthy men. “Oh but they’re not typical.” Well no, but if you look at the family set-ups of the top earning men in this country, there will still be a much higher proportion of SAHMs than for those in middle to low incomes. There are parts of London with a high concentration of such families and where being a SAHM is the norm. If your kids are in the prep schools in such areas, nearly all women will be SAH. Money buys this choice basically. Not representative nationally, but if you are talking about SAHMs specifically, here they are - hundreds of thousands of women and their lives are as real as anyone else’s. So telling these women they are financially vulnerable is a bit of a joke. Even if the DH leaves them, they would hardly be struggling in terms of national living standards, trust me on that. They may be only a small percentage of women nationally, but the point is, it constitutes a significant proportion of (long term) SAHMs. They don’t need MN “concern.”

I think what happens is, people project their own circumstances - “Well think god I wasn’t SAH because when my DH left me ...” This is totally understandable, but also not relevant to most SAHMs reading due to points 1,2 or 3 above. Or someone thinks of a neighbour they knew or whatever and based their entire view of SAHMs on one or two scenarios.

In summary, this is the Internet and you have no idea who you are taking to and what their financial security is, SAHM or not. Yes, YOU might have been more financially vulnerable without a job, but YOU are not the SAHMs you are talking to. Different finances, different security, different husband, different skill set /opportunities and different kids.

If a poster actually posts about feeling financially vulnerable and happens to be a SAHM, then by all means give her advice. Just stop giving patronising advice where it’s uncalled for because it comes across as bizarre, to be honest. That’s what I would ask.

This with bells on!

There’s a reason nobody’s really engaging with you, Paloma (and it’s not because you have watertight arguments).

I agree OP. I am not a SAHM but lost my job shortly after having my first child. I ended up taking a low status, low paid job because it was convenient and, in truth, she was a tricky baby (non sleeping, tantrum queen). I would not have coped in a professional position 9-5 or more where I would have had to think. Then I went on to have another child and I stayed.

DH tended not to be hands on despite a promising start then my parents' health started to fail. I had no support network and no true friends at the time (no time or emotional energy and no one to relate to, given my circumstances). In fact, I was the support network both ways.

Definitely too late for me. 15 years out of the game now. Father since died, mother now has dementia so no time or energy to retrain. Totally would be screwed if I left DH but, to be fair, most of our income is spent and he wouldn't fare too well either.

When you marry, your lives become entwined and you are interdependent. I doubt there are many with excess money to protect them should their marriage go tits up. That is why divorce is the most stressful thing.

I don't know what the answer us. Don't get married, don't have children?

To me having a career feels like an unobtainable luxury and I think everything has to be just right for it to work and, even then, there are no guarantees

@FloconDeNeige

I would add that on a basic level, if you outsource the responsibility for your (and your offspring’s) very survival to someone else, be that a partner, a family member or the state, then I suppose it’s going against the fundamental idea that adults are responsible for themselves. So it can attract raised eyebrows from some.

Now, the patriarchy makes everything more difficult for women, so in reality, individual choices are far more nuanced than this.

Really simplistic. You could equally argue it's a fundamental idea for a mother to do childcare for her offspring. That would be an equally simplistic argument that implies wohm aren't doing right by their families. As does your comment..at a basic level it's suggesting (again not overly) that a sahm isn't financially providing therefore is irresponsible

I’m not trying to make a “watertight argument.” Im asking people to not assume they know more about the pros and cons of SAH than the women who actually do it.

OP, you starting this thread and your subsequent stance on it, just makes people think that you’re not really very secure with having being a SAHM.

If it’s worked for you and you’re perfectly happy with your choices, why do you even care? Why do you care that people advise that the SAHM position is considered with caution, as it has real, potentially catastrophic consequences for a significant number of people (as evidenced by the daily threads on here). These are constant proof that many women have not ‘factored the risk in’, as Paloma says they have.

The super-wealthy and those with children who require round-the-clock care need not pay any heed to such advice as it doesn’t apply to them. Apparently it doesn’t apply to you either, so why do you want to suppress messages that could help others less fortunate than you?

Really simplistic.

Yes, that why I said ‘on a basic level’.

i think a lot of women with successful careers like to encourage younger women in particular to fight for their careers,and not give up their independence.Sometimes that comes over as being negative about SAHMs,which is unfortunate.
I

than the women who actually do it.

What about the many women who aren’t doing it, but are considering it and actively ask for advice? Should they not hear about the potential risks of SAH in case some actual SAHMs get offended?

@FloconDeNeige

OP, you starting this thread and your subsequent stance on it, just makes people think that you’re not really very secure with having being a SAHM.

If it’s worked for you and you’re perfectly happy with your choices, why do you even care? Why do you care that people advise that the SAHM position is considered with caution, as it has real, potentially catastrophic consequences for a significant number of people (as evidenced by the daily threads on here). These are constant proof that many women have not ‘factored the risk in’, as Paloma says they have.

The super-wealthy and those with children who require round-the-clock care need not pay any heed to such advice as it doesn’t apply to them. Apparently it doesn’t apply to you either, so why do you want to suppress messages that could help others less fortunate than you?

I never said I wanted to suppress the messages. Just that they shouldn't be blanket flung at every sahm thread despite the context. It's patronising.

I am secure with my choice. But clearly not entirely happy at this stage as I've made the decision to return to work...more through boredom and wanting more disposable income. Having said that if I had my time again I would have made the same decisions...I've loved being at home with my kids but now it's time for a change

Well the potential risks of SAH are blatantly obvious.

The individual can decide for themselves. Like anything else in life.

Well the potential risks of SAH are blatantly obvious.

Well they clearly aren’t, as evidenced by the sad stories of shafted SAHMs that appear on here every day.

Women are shafted in infinite ways in all kinds of scenarios, whether they work or not. Maybe nobody should get married at all?

Like it not, work provides some protection against being shafted and trying to argue that it doesn’t just makes you look foolish.

So some people think SAHM are lazy - SO WHAT? Some SAHM with school age children may very well be. If choosing not to go back to work when possible was lazy. However it’s nobody’s business but your family’s! The people who care too much are insecure and overly sensitive about their position as a SAHM. Or maybe their husbands have the exact same thoughts which is why they’re offended?

@paloma10

Women are shafted in infinite ways in all kinds of scenarios, whether they work or not. Maybe nobody should get married at all?

What the ‘it’s only a piece of paper’ argument.

That really does damage women.

@TheLastLotus

So some people think SAHM are lazy - SO WHAT? Some SAHM with school age children may very well be. If choosing not to go back to work when possible was lazy. However it’s nobody’s business but your family’s! The people who care too much are insecure and overly sensitive about their position as a SAHM. Or maybe their husbands have the exact same thoughts which is why they’re offended?

Or maybe some posters are just bullies and it's fine to raise an issue if you see it?

Yeah the fake “concern” gets old. The longest term sahm I know is a trustafarian and likely richer than you or most of us posting will ever be!

There's also frequently a SAHM who pops up on AIBU because her full time working partner has requested that maybe she do some housework given she's at home at all day. Accompanied by cries of "I HAVE A JOB TOO RAISING HIS KIDS!" Posters then point out that maybe loading the dishwasher isn't too much to ask in between the Fuzzy Felt and repeats of Peppa Pig and probably isn't the same effort as CEO of ICI. End result 'MN hates SAHMs'

“Like it not, work provides some protection against being shafted and trying to argue that it doesn’t just makes you look foolish.”

SOME protection yes, though obviously it depends on the work. You might have a job but no equity in your home or savings, for instance. Another woman on a lower income or SAH might have other assets to fall back on. Maybe she has the type of career that it’s reasonably easy to get back into if need be - even it’s this means doing agency work in the short-term. It’s too simplistic to assess financial vulnerability in the basis of work v don’t work. As I say, let individual be the best judge of her own circumstances.

Definition of bullying : seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce (someone perceived as vulnerable).

I don’t think someone politely expressing theirs opinion that a certain action is lazy counts as bullying. Unless they do it repeatedly (pile-on), or are rude about it.

WOHM get similar comments (leaving children in w nursery is cruel, I can’t POSSIBLY see how anyone could leave their darling baby with strangers). Strange how that’s ignored.

Work outside the home giving you additional security is a fact. Not wrong to point out.
SAHM being able to have time to do things other people need to manage alongside other things is also a mathematical fact. Nothing wrong with pointing out either.

Also as pp mentioned SAHM who post on here usually have problems and that is why they often get told these things. If you were happy and SAHM ship was working for you then no post and so no happy positive comment

Not being horrible. SAHM needs to ensure she can support herself financially. No good depending on someone else - mn proves this causes massive issues if you split. And it IS hard to get back into work when your skills are lacking and you’re going up against qualified up to date skilled other applicants. It realistic and supportive. Not mean.

*security is some circumstances