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?

@paloma10

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...)

It is the clear implication of Devkesko's comments and unchanged by disingenuous responses.

Also subtly hinted at by Puttingouthefirewithgasoline's comment.

Was the other poster incorrect when she said that luxuries are paid for by working people?

Yeah that was a bit unfair in retrospect, sorry OP.

@mainsfed thank you.

“Was the other poster incorrect when she said that luxuries are paid for by working people?”

Sorry, what other poster?

@paloma10

“Was the other poster incorrect when she said that luxuries are paid for by working people?”

Sorry, what other poster?

The one you quoted. "Yes, and in the case of a sahm, it's her partner's job that pays for them.”

You seemed to be ridiculing the comment.

@DrSbaitso maybe @paloma10 was ridiculing the comment as it's stating the obvious? Correct me if I'm wrong paloma

Although I would say any luxuries we have it's not lauded over me that my husband's job pays for it. We are a partnership.

Oh right. Yes, that the whole “you are paid for by a man” thing again isn’t it? What would you like me to say?

My husband wouldn’t see it like that because we are, you know, married with children and have been for a long time, but I know some people on here can’t grasp that which is kind of sad, but each to their own.

If I was working, everything would still be shared but his income would massively overwhelm mine, so what’s the difference?

Or perhaps I should follow the MN advice and we can have totally separate finances. Then he can spend “his” money and I can spend “mine.” Yes that would be ideal and so much fun for the kids when I can’t join them on holiday. Maybe I should move into the garden shed?

I think your title should be why are some women so horrible to each other?

We appear to now be scraping the very depths of the barrel with comments about designer handbags so 90s

I dont see this in RL at all.
I " lent" my work colleague £10 yesterday as she "forgot" her lunch.
I will decline to take it back and I know others bought her some groceries as shes struggling .
No nastiness just support.
Try it , its so much better.

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

Are you suggesting that men don't buy luxuries? You're doing a great job of emphasising the point I was making.

It is often a criticism aimed at women who choose to go out to work. I've seen it numerous times - comments about materialist women choosing holidays, handbags and shoes over caring for their children.
I have never seen comments about working dads choosing luxuries over childcare.

It is misogynistic bullshit.

Yes, that the whole “you are paid for by a man” thing again isn’t it?

Well, one poster was sneering that women who work are only doing it for fripperies, and another pointed out that if you don't work, any fripperies you get are being paid for by someone else.

The first comment was misogynistic and untrue. The second was a response to the first and therefore had a context. It was also, well, true. In the ridiculousness stakes, it's clear which post wins.

Moral of the story: don't make bullshit and misogynistic jibes about fripperies if you don't want someone else to point out where else they must be coming from.

I literally couldn’t care less what women or men buy with their money. Blimey. Talk about a storm in a teacup.

@paloma10

I literally couldn’t care less what women or men buy with their money. Blimey. Talk about a storm in a teacup.

I think the issue was more the implication that men provide nobly while women just want to buy unnecessary shit.

Still, if it isn't important, by all means ignore the posts next time.

But who even said that?

Of course women are working to provide for their families and don’t spend it all on handbags

This thread is the height of crazy, it really is

@paloma10

I literally couldn’t care less what women or men buy with their money. Blimey. Talk about a storm in a teacup.

I was the person who posted the original comment, while you might not care it is a comment you see on here an awful lot. I've had posters direct it to me personally.

I study and research women's career development. If there is a narrative that women work for luxuries this seeps into how women are treated in the workplace, how choosing to work is viewed and the decision whether to work at all.

If we want women's careers to be taken as seriously men's then we need to stop and challenge these types of comments.

But who even said that?

Nobody!

But who even said that?

It’s a common thing that comes upon on these kind of threads. Women’s role in providing for their family is frequently underplayed and there’s the suggestion that women only work for fripperies / because they’re materialistic. Whereas men ‘provide’.

It was a commentary on the misogyny inherent in the debate, not a reference to a particular post. But then a certain poster tried a stupid ‘gotcha’ attempt, which just proved the point really.

It was a commentary on the misogyny inherent in the debate, not a reference to a particular post. But then a certain poster tried a stupid ‘gotcha’ attempt, which just proved the point really.

I thought it was a direct comment about this post.

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?

@Kottbullar

It was a commentary on the misogyny inherent in the debate, not a reference to a particular post. But then a certain poster tried a stupid ‘gotcha’ attempt, which just proved the point really.

I thought it was a direct comment about this post.

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?

It was both.

It was both.

So it was a reference to a particular post and it wasn't a reference to a particular post?

It seems like a reference to a post that has been very likely misinterpreted.

So it was a reference to a particular post and it wasn't a reference to a particular post?

I missed that post, but presumably it reminded the poster of the way these threads often go. Not particularly hard to understand, surely?

@Kottbullar

It was both.

So it was a reference to a particular post and it wasn't a reference to a particular post?

It seems like a reference to a post that has been very likely misinterpreted.

It was both a response to an actual post - commenting that the narrative of women working for luxuries exists and a comment to highlight the misogynistic undertones of such comments.

One other poster made a snide comment about men, handbags and the style boards which proved my point somewhat.

@TheKeatingFive

So it was a reference to a particular post and it wasn't a reference to a particular post?

I missed that post, but presumably it reminded the poster of the way these threads often go. Not particularly hard to understand, surely?

Exactly this.

@TheKeatingFive

So it was a reference to a particular post and it wasn't a reference to a particular post?

I missed that post, but presumably it reminded the poster of the way these threads often go. Not particularly hard to understand, surely?

It just seems like an unfair comment on the original post to me. Now being used to back up a narrative that, I'm not saying doesn't exist in the workplace but I've not seen myself on these types of threads.

It just seems like an unfair comment on the original post to me

Well I wasn’t commenting on the original post personally.

The narrative has come up on many of these threads. It’s well established whether you’ve seen it or not.