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?

@KarmaKarma

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

My experience is that when people say ‘male or female’ in this context, they mean ‘female’. It’s the new ‘I’m not racist, but...’

Do you think that men who work for the armed forces shouldn’t have children? And should leave if they decide to? What about men who work as pilots, or for the diplomatic service, or on offshore rigs, or the security services, or any of the other jobs that involve travel and overseas postings (that are predominantly occupied by men)? Would you tell any of those men they are doing a ‘horrible thing’ if they have children and keep their jobs?

Maybe you would. But somehow I doubt it.

Righto. So what you’re saying is ‘I hear what you’re saying but I choose to tell you that you ACTUALLY think what I SAY you think’. Lovely.

As the child of a largely absent father in one of the professions you list in your post, fundamentally yes - I do believe that only people who plan to be consistently present in their children’s lives (barring unforeseen events of course, like early death) should have children. I don’t believe that being in the military and disappearing for six months at a time, into sometimes highly dangerous situations, is a positive thing for any child to have to cope with.

That’s why I’m always frustrated when female posters say things like they had to give up work against their will because their male partner travels so much for work which is totally unavoidable. It’s really not - it’s within almost anyone’s power to move jobs into something that can work with family life. It’s just that many men don’t choose to whereas women often do.

Mayor - I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, but if one partner is a much higher earner than the other, it doesn’t make sense for them to just cut back. My husband is probably a workaholic to all intents and purposes and hell would freeze over, frankly, before he did that. He’s also from a culture where, let’s just say, the concept of a SAHD would not be entertained, so this is what I was dealing with. We had 4 children and he wanted more, but I had to say that was enough. He has never asked me if I would like to go back to work. I doubt it’s ever invited to him in all these years. He just says, “You’re a mum and that’s the most important thing and you don’t need to go out to work.” He said that as soon as I was first pregnant. His mother never worked, His brothers’ wives don’t work either. So this is what I mean about context. Many women might have run a mile, I guess. But when it came to the crunch, I did want to be with the kids and so I’ve made my life and that was my choice. Financial vulnerability was never an issue in my case. I don’t think I could have been SAH if it was. But what I would say, is there can be an imbalance as the years go on in the sense that his time gets prioritised, if that makes sense. I have a lot of freedom now the kids are a bit older, but still, I’d feel guilty just going off for a week, whereas he wouldn’t think twice. He assumes I’m always here, of course, because I am! As I say, it wouldn’t suit everyone. But he’s never weird with money and has set things up so that if he disappeared tomorrow, I’d be more than sorted and so would the kids. Everything is family money and he’s works very hard to provide the life we have, so I have to respect him for that, even if he is a bit OTT in the way he goes about it. He could retire now, but he doesn’t know how to stop, to be honest. But you can’t change people, fundamentally, so you just have to let them do whatever they’re going to do. You either decide it’s for you, or you don’t.

occurred to him, not invited!

Writing as a sahm you tread on people's toes, it's too emotional a subject isn't it!

Everyone needs are different and expenses, one nct mum told me I was lucky I didn't have to work and that she had too baby from six months in nursery every day all day...

But we were scraping by with very low expectations on new stuff, personal grooming, very low living costs definitely no fancy holidays and sometimes the most basic holiday like one night by the sea.

She however, had refitted her house and added a room, all new fancy taps, package trips to Jamaica, regular hair dresser

It was quite frustrating but what can I say?
Anything I say may imply she favoured material things over the needs of Her six month old baby?

All out war.

It was quite frustrating but what can I say?
Anything I say may imply she favoured material things over the needs of Her six month old baby?

The thing is this type of comment is levelled at working mums all the time. Women work for luxuries while men are providing for their family.

Another thing I have noticed is that men want to be hands on but don't feel supported by their employer.

Two of our male managers couldn't attend Zoom meetings at 6pm because they clashed with the wind down to bedtime with their small children.

I also remember DHs boss shrugging his shoulders at him when I said I needed him home early to pick our eldest up from school because his wife would drive to the school with one puking into a bucket.

I think many bosses aren't accommodating because men have wives at home and so it continues

Women work for luxuries while men are providing for their family.

Another thing that needs saying twice. It's amazing how easily some people disregard the basic need for money.

Women work for luxuries while men are providing for their family.

Yes the misogyny of this is appalling. Women are working for handbags and foreign holidays apparently. . Whereas men are ‘providers’.

We found one whole wage was gone on childcare. Sometimes just not feasible. Have done both stayed home and worked. Nobodys business!!!

Yes the misogyny of this is appalling. Women are working for handbags and foreign holidays apparently. hmm. Whereas men are ‘providers’

Yes, it’s absolute bollocks isn’t it?

@FloconDeNeige

Yes the misogyny of this is appalling. Women are working for handbags and foreign holidays apparently. hmm. Whereas men are ‘providers’

Yes, it’s absolute bollocks isn’t it?

Too right it’s bollocks

@Mary46 👏🏻

Those men on style and beauty are annoying talking about their designer handbags.

@FloconDeNeige

Yes the misogyny of this is appalling. Women are working for handbags and foreign holidays apparently. hmm. Whereas men are ‘providers’

Yes, it’s absolute bollocks isn’t it?

It is bollocks, but I’ve been on threads today where women say they’re going back to work for child care money/holidays. Surely the money just goes to the household pot and used to pay for a variety of things including bills, mortgage etc. So i think a lot of women have internalised it.

Those men on style and beauty are annoying talking about their designer handbags

What a cheap shot. Because men never spend money on gadgets or cars or hobbies

@TheKeatingFive

Those men on style and beauty are annoying talking about their designer handbags

What a cheap shot. Because men never spend money on gadgets or cars or hobbies

Women also contribute to the pot that pays mortgages and household bills. However, designer handbags and luxury holidays aren't cheap, usually having a job pays for them.

However, designer handbags and luxury holidays aren't cheap, usually having a job pays for them.

Your point is what though?

Both men and women work to support their families. Both men and women can also spend money on things they enjoy.

Criticise! The word is criticise, not critique.

However, designer handbags and luxury holidays aren't cheap, usually having a job pays for them.
Yes, and in the case of a sahm, it's her partner's job that pays for them.

@womanity

Criticise! The word is criticise, not critique.

I will write what I like thanks. What an odd thing to get annoyed about.

Thanks for your CRITIQUE! 😂

@womanity your comment is perhaps part of the wider issues with MN. A comment that has no purpose but to make another person feel small.

It's an internet forum, not some sort of test or assignment. I often see posters comment on people's spelling or grammar..and now word choice.

If it makes sense why does it matter? People are busy and just replying quickly, using words that come in their heads rather than over thinking.

This really can be a very bitchy forum.
t

designer handbags and luxury holidays aren't cheap

Nor are motorbikes, sports cars and games consoles.

Is this the most ridiculous argument we have had so far? I think it is.

Yes a whole new level of ridiculous.

“Yes, and in the case of a sahm, it's her partner's job that pays for them.”

This poster is sharing a particularly stunning revelation.

(Did anybody even say women are only working for handbags? Please point me to that...)

@StopCryingYourHeartOut

Jealousy.

Pure and simple. It's isn't anymore complicated than that.

I don't buy that anybody on MN has 'concern' over a random stranger from the Internets financial situation. That's just nonsense.
Plain old fashioned jealousy dressed up as 'concern.'

I think this says more about you than anything else.

I’ve probably typed out hundreds of posts to women who are being financially abused, e.g. women working FT with a cocklodger at home, or SAHMs living with a partner who won’t marry them or a husband who doesn’t give them access to joint account etc.

It seems to be people like you and OP setting up a SAHM vs WOOH divide and it’s completely unnecessary. In my experience most MNers hate seeing a woman financially abused, regardless of her working status.

@mainsfed I'm actually a bit annoyed you say I'm setting up a sahm Vs wohm divide.

If you actually read my comments it's about accepting other people have different lifestyle choices.

I am about to become a wohm and I am currently a sahm so clearly I have no issue with either choice