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?

‘Nobody’s saying that working is a panacea protection against all of life’s ills (having an abusive partner, for e.g.), but in the main, for the vast majority of people, it does provide some degree of buffer against potential financial destitution & homelessness.’

But I was homeless and destitute. And having a job created additional difficulties because it stopped me from being eligible for legal aid and having my name on the mortgage made it much more difficult to sever finances from my partner.

The vast majority of people in a job aren’t in an abusive relationship, just as the vast majority of SAHMs aren’t.

In these conversations about SAHMs, the problem that is put to them is what will happen if your relationship breaks down and your DH turns out to be abusive and refuses any support and won’t contribute?

Well what do you think happens if your partner is abusive and you have a job? Do you think you will be able to build up savings or a good credit record if you are paying for everything but have no benefit top ups because of your partner’s wage? This is a classic scenario for working mothers in DV. Look how many women on here don’t know how they will afford to pay for things on maternity leave, or are broke after paying childcare, because their DH will not contribute.

If you have to put someone else down to pull yourself up, that says more about you than them.

SAHW's also get a hard time on here.

@LolaSmiles

So it’s fine to make the point once about potential financial vulnerability, but when a poster replies “yes thanks, I’ve already considered that ... “ just let it drop! It depends what else follows. Where someone says "I've considered that and DH is paying into a pension pot/savings in my name" or "I've considered that, but I've got my own assets and DP has added me on the house" or "I've considered that, but it's ok because I'm using the time off to retrain in another area so I can work flexibly in future" etc then people tend to back off.

When the reply is "I've already considered that and DP says not to worry because he'll never make me and the kids homeless" / "I've spoken to DP about that and he said his pension is enough for us both so I don't need adding onto it" / "I've already talked to DP and we considered (insert measure that would offer more financial protection) but he said (insert excuse here) and he's a good guy", the responses are very different. Some posters might 'bang on' and this point because they see a woman who is making herself very financially vulnerable based on their DP's empty words, that conveniently have him holding all all cards.

I have outlined by circumstances and I've had posters stating I've put my career at a disadvantage and reduced my pension. I'm not stupid I know that. It's patronising to keep beating the same drum constantly.

It seems some posters are happy to accuse me of trying to censor the conversation and stop women getting advice. They say so as it suits their narrative.

All I'm saying is readdress the balance. It's possible to be a sahm for a couple of years and yes it affects you long term but I was happy with the benefits of being at home with my daughter's as a trade off

they aren't being set up to fail the way women are and therefore don't tend to feel defensive or insecure about their choices.

Absolutely. There was a thread on here not so long ago where the mother was contemplating working away for set periods and her DH doing the childcare solo during them. She got torn to shreds with people telling her that she’d permanently damage her kids etc. Yet the same isn’t levelled at men, by and large, is it?

@vivainsomnia

It’s also not uncommon to assume that going back to work after 5 or more years won’t be a problem, when the reality is that many feel totally removed from the world of employment, have lost their confidence and can’t imagine themselves ever working again. The longer the years the harder it is to feel confident enough to return to work.

I think this is very true. If you intend to return to employment I do think a small gap is going to be easier. And yes the loss of confidence is a big problem. I agree with you.

“Over the past 40 years, the UK has seen an almost continual rise in the proportion of women in employment. The employment rate among women of 'prime working age' (aged 25-54) is up from 57% in 1975 to a record high of 78% in 2017.”

Here you go Flocon. That was just a quick Google. I wasn’t including pensioners. The point is, women who SAH are not the majority no, but those who are have diverse reasons, so try listening to them.

@LibertyMole

‘Nobody’s saying that working is a panacea protection against all of life’s ills (having an abusive partner, for e.g.), but in the main, for the vast majority of people, it does provide some degree of buffer against potential financial destitution & homelessness.’

But I was homeless and destitute. And having a job created additional difficulties because it stopped me from being eligible for legal aid and having my name on the mortgage made it much more difficult to sever finances from my partner.

The vast majority of people in a job aren’t in an abusive relationship, just as the vast majority of SAHMs aren’t.

In these conversations about SAHMs, the problem that is put to them is what will happen if your relationship breaks down and your DH turns out to be abusive and refuses any support and won’t contribute?

Well what do you think happens if your partner is abusive and you have a job? Do you think you will be able to build up savings or a good credit record if you are paying for everything but have no benefit top ups because of your partner’s wage? This is a classic scenario for working mothers in DV. Look how many women on here don’t know how they will afford to pay for things on maternity leave, or are broke after paying childcare, because their DH will not contribute.

Important point. It comes down again to everyone's circumstances being different.

Nobody’s questioning the reasons why people choose the be SAHMs, they are cautioning against the risks. The two are not the same.

So I guess the employment rate for prime working age men is not vastly greater than that for women then. And the ONS states that only 1 in 11 mothers are SAHMs. So by anyone’s definition, not the vast majority.

I don't think it's horrible. There are some posts from SAHMs who are being treated horribly and asking for advice, and I think in that instance, advising financial freedom is surely a good thing.

Do working mothers enjoy being “cautioned against the risks”, do they find it supportive or patronising or downright rude?

I’ve never read a post which sets out to say SAHM are lazy, incompetent or wrong for making the choices they have.

Of course I’ve seen plenty of posts about people making comments towards SAHP and working mothers. But not more than the other. Critique of both paths, equally given.

What we do see every single day is post after post after post of women in very vulnerable positions - financially mostly. With very little money of their own, very little asset and very little confidence to address the imbalance of the relationships and home life.

ALL of the long term stay at home mums I know ( there aren’t many tbf) are at a distinct disadvantage. The money is earned by the man, they aren’t degree + educated and rely on the elusive idea that one day they will find a job that suits them - even though their skills are out of touch and every year we have more and more capable young people coming into the employment pool.

It breaks my heart that they don’t see the reality of it. Sure stay home when babies are young if you want to but by school age? Look at the statistics for divorce and single parent families and then consider how best to protect yourself and your kids.

Flocon - I am actually agreeing with you (despite the fact you feel the need to be quite rude to me). You talk about “deviation from the norm” and yes, I accept that. I am saying that, in this day and age, SAHMs are in the minority for sure - we all know this. But within that minority, it’s not “one size fit all and they all need the same advice.” Everything in life has its opportunity cost and most (not all, but most) SAHMs will have weighed this up in the context of their circumstances which are likely to be highly personal.

Flocon - I am actually agreeing with you (despite the fact you feel the need to be quite rude to me). You talk about “deviation from the norm” and yes, I accept that. I am saying that, in this day and age, SAHMs are in the minority for sure - we all know this. But within that minority, it’s not “one size fit all and they all need the same advice.” Everything in life has its opportunity cost and most (not all, but most) SAHMs will have weighed this up in the context of their circumstances which are likely to be highly personal.

Do working mothers enjoy being “cautioned against the risks”, do they find it supportive or patronising or downright rude?

I’m not sure it’s directly comparable. What risks are you talking about?

While I understand someone like paloma’s frustration when she has everything worked out, it’s not uncommon to find SAHMs on here who’ve never even thought of pension provision, for example. Or who don’t realise how vulnerable they are if they aren’t married.

Do working mothers enjoy being “cautioned against the risks”, do they find it supportive or patronising or downright rude?

Encouraging women to be clued up so they can make an informed decision about their finances in the short, medium, and long term is surely entirely reasonable, unless you advocate that women don't research their options and/or take what their DP says as gospel without doing their research?

@5zeds

Do working mothers enjoy being “cautioned against the risks”, do they find it supportive or patronising or downright rude?

But what is the risk of employment? Being employed is the norm. Providing for yourself is the norm. Regardless of the risk assessment there, most people have to work.

A lot of SAHM are in denial of what it actually means to be a SAHM and would also argue it's nothing to do with feminism. But equally, I'd be keen to hear from all SAHM on here - if your DH said he wants to be a SAHP and not work, is he allowed this choice and would you take on being the provider? Because if not, that's not really equality is it?

@FloconDeNeige

they aren't being set up to fail the way women are and therefore don't tend to feel defensive or insecure about their choices.

Absolutely. There was a thread on here not so long ago where the mother was contemplating working away for set periods and her DH doing the childcare solo during them. She got torn to shreds with people telling her that she’d permanently damage her kids etc. Yet the same isn’t levelled at men, by and large, is it?

Actually on that thread many posters including myself were at pains to point out that what the Op was proposing was a horrible thing for any parent, male or female, to do. If I recall correctly her youngest child was a one year old baby and she was planning to be away for weeks, possibly months, at a time. I stand by my response to that which is that it’s not compatible with being a good parent and is likely to negatively affect the attachment the child has to it’s parent.

V good question @Sunflowers095
I asked my dh if he wanted to share maternity and he said he would of liked to but he earns so much more than I did so it didn't make sense but I did offer. I should also add since lo has come along he has said many times he wouldn't of been able to do it ?

@Sunflowers095 what does it actually mean to be a sahm then? What denial do you think people are in?

Yes I would be happy for my husband's to stay at home instead...it's just highly unlikely as due to the sector he works in he will always earn more than me

what the Op was proposing was a horrible thing for any parent, male or female, to do

It wasn’t a horrible thing to do. It wasn’t ideal, I agree. And I agree with you that unless it’s really necessary, it’s not a great idea for either parent with very small children. But the roasting she got was largely due to the fact she was the mother proposing it.

what the Op was proposing was a horrible thing for any parent, male or female, to do

It wasn’t a horrible thing to do. It wasn’t ideal, I agree. And I agree with you that unless it’s really necessary, it’s not a great idea for either parent with very small children. But the roasting she got was largely due to the fact she was the mother proposing it.

@FloconDeNeige

what the Op was proposing was a horrible thing for any parent, male or female, to do

It wasn’t a horrible thing to do. It wasn’t ideal, I agree. And I agree with you that unless it’s really necessary, it’s not a great idea for either parent with very small children. But the roasting she got was largely due to the fact she was the mother proposing it.

I don’t want to get into an argument but I don’t really appreciate you telling me that you know my opinions better than me. I am telling you factually that as one of the posters who ‘roasted’ that OP (and by that I mean answered the question that she asked honestly) it was not because she is the child’s mother. I would have said exactly the same to a man. Choose not to believe me if you like but you’re literally inventing something and insisting you’re right.

Personally being a SAHM was the best time of my life, but of course I realise it's not for everyone and I would never put anyone down for using a child minder or nursery. I went back to work when my DC started school. I was lucky that my DP could support us on one salary, but also I saved up for the time when I would be a SAHM, as I had always planned to do this, so I could still contribute a little bit. I have seen posts putting down all sorts of lifestyles on here. Some people just can't seem to accept that others are entitled to make choices that are different to their own. There's a general lack of acceptance on here at times.

@Sunflowers095 I'm a sahm.

If my DH wanted to be a sahd (which he categorically does not, he always said pre-children he's quite like to but then swiftly changed his mind once they arrived and he saw how bloody relentless it was!) I would be supportive of that and go out to work. However it wouldn't work for us, because he earns an awful lot more than I did.

I earned £40k. He earns £90k. We could lose mine and still be perfectly fine, comfortable even.

So our choices are no parents at home both working, or me at home.

Luckily I wanted to be a sahm, so it all worked out ok for us in the end!