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?

@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?

spot on

Flocon, there is a tendency in society to 'other' people who are different to us, to make judgements that their lives would be better if only they'd made the same choices as us. It's why blame culture is so rife and why people who aren't net contributors to the system are demonised, while people in ft (well paid) employment are seen as better. The system uses divide and rule as a very effective strategy to keep us all in our place. It is easy if you are middle class or wealthy to think that everyone could be like you, if only they'd been 'better', while not appreciating that this wealth and privilege is built on the labour of less well paid people, who have had fewer opportunities. We live in a society where the work culture is still very masculine, society does little to support working parents and it's usually women who bear the brunt because it's women who work disproportionately in lower paid, insecure employment. For women to compete in what is still a very male environment, requires a lot of supporting players.
So for women to pit themselves against each other doesn't serve any of us. So I think that it's wrong to position Woh as more feminist than not, because it's very individualistic and ignores a lot of the detail surrounding how people come to make choices and it leads to women arguing amongst ourselves over who is the better feminist instead of concentrating on who is benefiting from our division.

@FloconDeNeige

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?

Reading multiple versions of "your making yourself financially vulnerable" peppered with insults about staying at home being boring/mind numbing etc is hardly great advice. For example there are always scaremongering comments about what if the earner dies or is too sick to work? Advice would be that it's good practice for everyone with dependants to have insurance for these eventualities but it's not mentioned in such comments.

Just to add my 2pence worth. I did the sahm for 5 years hated it. Combined it with part work for another 5 years. Got 3 decent job offers at the age of 44 having not worked full time for 10years. Didn't realise till pandemic started and I was working wfh that the kids like this balance of me being there (rather than a nanny). Yes it's incredibly difficult when with kids there, but we are now getting the best of both worlds. Id love my husband to be more flexible in his big important job though

“ Or maybe their husbands have the exact same thoughts which is why they’re offended?”

Inevitably someone will always get this little snipe in too. Says more about their husband, to be honest.

The poor men. Hmmm. Let’s think about that.

Surely stating that one would find being a sahm boring and mind numbing doesn’t mean that they are insulting those who don’t think it is.

I don’t get offended if someone says that they find their day more productive looking after their children.

I agree that it comes down to insecurities. My experience of sahm is that some I got to meet put me to shame with the way they ran their life, whilst others were indeed plain lazy.

The status in itself means nothing but a choice women make. The on,y issue is those who claim that they had no choice once their kids started school and sometimes before.

Op I think it's mainstream UK culture now.

It’s too simplistic to assess financial vulnerability in the basis of work v don’t work.

For the vast majority of people though, it really isn’t.

You and your London friends with your uber-wealthy husbands and property renovation diverse investment portfolio dabbling, are so far removed from the norm as to be wholly insignificant to the wider discussion. Literally, you’re about 5 standard deviations from the norm and can therefore safely be ignored.

If I had my time back I would have continued to work somehow

It just wasn’t possible

Autistic child
Husband away at least two nights a
Week
No family support

So I decided to make the most of it

I agree the criticism under the incredibly patronising “have you thought about what happens if you need to work/separate/dh dies” is really irritating. You would (rightly) be horrified if a SAHP kindly listed all the negatives of being in work.

@paloma10 it’s not a big feat of observation to notice that if someone close to you doesn’t support your choice it stings more. And invariably lots of people who post on here have a husband problem.

However the fact remains that being sole breadwinner as pp have mentioned is stressful. While there are men who’s prefer to work and use that as an excuse not to be involved in family life there are also plenty more who’d rather share the burden of earning to their wives and leave the chores be. If someone’s in a precarious situation with their career and stressed it’s easy to see how resentment towards the SAHP can build.
That’s why people say that being a SAHP is a dynamic decision. Should be reevaluated when there’s a change in circumstances and with the agreement of both parties with as much forward planning as possible. It should not just be a simple ‘nursery costs too much, someone stay home’ and then continues on for 10 years because it’s the default.

Nobody is denying that unforeseen situations can happen like an abusive husband etc but it’s more about the active planning involved in the choice rather than sleepwalking into it. And men need to be held responsible for their share of the household as well, not outsource to default parent.

Literally, you’re about 5 standard deviations from the norm and can therefore safely be ignored. Holy Shit! Did you read that before you pressed Post?

@5zeds

A woman in exceptionally fortunate circumstances married to an ultra-wealthy man, who objects to advice being shared that may help other women far less less fortunate than herself, is objectionable in the extreme.

[quote TheLastLotus]@paloma10 it’s not a big feat of observation to notice that if someone close to you doesn’t support your choice it stings more. And invariably lots of people who post on here have a husband problem.

However the fact remains that being sole breadwinner as pp have mentioned is stressful. While there are men who’s prefer to work and use that as an excuse not to be involved in family life there are also plenty more who’d rather share the burden of earning to their wives and leave the chores be. If someone’s in a precarious situation with their career and stressed it’s easy to see how resentment towards the SAHP can build.
That’s why people say that being a SAHP is a dynamic decision. Should be reevaluated when there’s a change in circumstances and with the agreement of both parties with as much forward planning as possible. It should not just be a simple ‘nursery costs too much, someone stay home’ and then continues on for 10 years because it’s the default.

Nobody is denying that unforeseen situations can happen like an abusive husband etc but it’s more about the active planning involved in the choice rather than sleepwalking into it. And men need to be held responsible for their share of the household as well, not outsource to default parent.[/quote]
This post needs to appear at least twice.

Yes I am irrelevant Flocon and I’m not even talking about myself anyway. I’m just saying that your depiction of SAHMs is quite narrow. And I do feel that my comments have slightly more relevance than yours actually, given that I am, in fact, a SAHM.

I have some SAHM friends that concern me, sure. One is actually a second wife (the first wife is in Egypt and apparently trying to divorce him but this has been going on years). There are, of course, many women who need their husbands permission to work - this is something that rarely gets mentioned in the SAHM threads either and this surprises me. Even my own DH is one that preferred me not working, but he wouldn’t have stopped me. There are so many factors at play and the situations women find themselves in are highly personal. This is why the “one size fits all” version of SAHMs on here is unhelpful.

If you are wonderfully wealthy and would be absolutely fine if your husband died or walked out or got too ill to work, that's great, but I cannot see why you would take offence because people are conscious of many others not being so fortunate. It's not an insult.

Totally agree lastlotus. This was the feeling of a number of male colleagues. They found the pressure of being sole owner very stressful. When this was added to their feeling that their wife was spending money on luxuries depleting the account rather than saving for tomorrow, it made their feelings stronger. When they brought up the matter that now the kids were at school and maybe they could consider a PT job and they either said no or that they’d look but it became obvious they had no intention to accept anything, r sentiment took over.

Two divorced over it. One is still with his wife but moans about her all the time.

Many men are perfectly happy with their wives at home but many are not and the wives chose to ignore it because the alternative of working is not something they want to consider and they assume their partner will get used to it.

many women who need their husbands permission to work these women are in abusive relationships and should be encouraged to get out, not accept the situation and make the best of if being sahm against their wishes.

Two divorced over it. One is still with his wife but moans about her all the time.

The women preferred to get divorced than to get jobs? Surely there's more to it than that. Are they working now?

The thing that annoys me most on sahm threads is when a sahm says she has chosen to be home to be there more for the kids emotionally, help with homework, and be more involved in their lives.
Then a working mum comes on and says 'dont you think I do all of that AND WORK'
There are advantages and disadvantages to working or being at home and for many it isn't a choice but to disregard the hours when someone is at home and pretend it is worthless time is unhelpful and wrong and it's what can come across as really disparaging to SAHMs.
I work three days but I do really miss seeing my child after school on those 3 days, it is such a rush to do dinner, bath and bed and they are often tired and grumpy, so I can see a huge advantage to being at home with school age kids. Unless you can work 9-3 which very few jobs allow.

I don't think that's really the case, most posters are here having been through a bad experience of having been a sahm and been left disadvantaged.

I'd say hindsight is a wonderful thing and they are for the most trying to help people understand the risks they are taking.

The thing that annoys me most is the people who tell SAHM's that now their kids are in full time school they should find a job.As if jobs that are school hours only/term time only are in abundance:they are like gold dust.

My friend has one such gold dust job working as a catering assistant in a school kitchen 10-2 but hates it with a passion.She a partner who won't help with childcare either physically or financially and no family who will help save for the very occasional couple of hours babysitting.

@5zeds

I agree the criticism under the incredibly patronising “have you thought about what happens if you need to work/separate/dh dies” is really irritating. You would (rightly) be horrified if a SAHP kindly listed all the negatives of being in work.

Whatever the negatives of work are, adults are expected to provide for themselves. Sure, there's negatives of working, as well as negatives of being in school, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

Patronizing or not, there is a massive power imbalance in a relationship with a working parent and a SAHP.

If your DH makes 70k a year and you stay home, he could hire a nanny and stop giving you money overnight.

As a SAHM what choices do you have? Trying to find employment? Staying without money? Long divorce processes to get access to money, and that's only if you're actually married?

Expecting someone to provide for you and basing your entire livelihood in trusting that person to do right by you is a bit naive. It's just odd that women presented with a choice of being independent or not choose to give up independence. Fair enough to anyone who does want that but there's nothing noble about it and people will have their own opinions, which if you post on a public forum, they will probably share.

Really if there was ever a situation that needed questions it’s one that is often made in a blur of hormones and sleep deprivation. Looking round my peers the scenario where husband suddenly gets ill and can’t work or leaves having hidden assets or who gets made redundant suddenly doesn’t seem that unusual.I loved my time as a SAHM but it is easy for me as I went straight back to old income levels. Looking at my friends a handful of years has cost them 100s of thousands of income never mind pension contributions.

Oh yeah I get this.

I'm a sahm. I own half the house which has a small mortgage and high value (500k ish). I have my own pension that we still pay into. All of our savings are split into accounts in individual names so in effect I have immediate access to half that he doesn't, and vice versa and we've a years salary in there. We both have critical illness cover, death in service benefits and life insurance. Our wills leave everything to each other. I'm married.

I don't have a degree, but I have twelve years of a decent career with five at low senior management level.

I'm also a full time carer to one of my children who has ASD, which we didn't plan for obviously. But most people (in RL) don't know that because she's a fabulous masker, very cognitively able and hold it together until she gets home when she just explodes. My youngest is still under school age. I'd always planned to go back to work when she started school but my eldest needs will probably make that impossible.

My word. Mention I'm a sahm and all you have is cries of 'you'll be screwed if he leaves'. Erm, no I won't. We would need to sell the house (of which I'd get half) and I'd need to find a job. Which wouldn't be a breeze, but it'd be perfectly doable. My brain hasn't dissolved just because I've been at home for five years!

I have lost count of the number of times (on here and in RL) that I've had the head tilt, the insinuation that I'm lazy, the assumption that I must have not had a career worth bothering with if I was willing to give it up, that I'm probably a bit thick. I have even been asked if my eldest is 'like she is' because I'm a sahm, and asked if I think that she'd 'be ok' if I'd just put her in nursery from a young age instead. Erm, that's not really how it works!!

I truly do not judge working mothers. I think everyone should do what works best for their own families. I don't think nursery harms very young children, nor do I think it's particularly beneficial before about age 3. Even though I'm at home, mine use their 15 hours in a preschool at age 3 because after that age I think the socialisation is good for them in preparation for school. I've also had comments about that. What could I possibly be doing at home for those 15 hours a week, hey?! I don't need them, I don't work! But they need them.

I do think that the people who are condescending to sahms are the ones that are coming at it from a place of not having the choice. There are probably very few women who could happily and easily afford not to work, but choose to purely because they want to or are worried about not contributing society. Anecdotally every working mum I know would either not be able to afford not to work, or would have to accept a significant lowering of a very nice lifestyle standard in order to do so. And they don't want to. That's fine. But then don't disparage other people because they do have the choice or are able to easily make a different choice to you.

When you're being snippy about a sahm, ask yourself this - could you make the same choices if you wanted to without you being a) unable to afford to survive or b) really changing your lifestyle in a way that you wouldn't want? If the answer is no, then your scorn is probably coming from a place of jealousy, rather than concern!!