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

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

Are you trying to create an endless circle? We established that it was the clear implication of a couple of posters, because you apparently missed it. And it got the very obvious response from someone else. Which you jumped on.

Just click back a page if you want to have the whole "storm in a teacup" (your words) again.

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.

I wasn't Intending on being unfair and I didn't accuse the poster of saying that ( if you read the original post I think I that's clear)
I was simply pointing out that that narrative does exist and often pops up when this topic is debated.

Judging by the amount of tetchy defensiveness from some SAHMs on this thread alone, it appears fairly obvious that those who are truly secure in their choice, are few and far between. Which is fine, people are allowed to change their minds. Just don’t take it out on the rest of us!

Yet strangely, those who are not SAHM and have no intention of ever being so are still on here, 21 pages in. Ask yourselves why you even care so much about women who SAH that you have so much to say and won’t let it drop? What’s that even about?

I think the last couple of pages are a glaring example of insecurity, if ever I saw it .

But you know, fair enough, if some women feel like that, then that’s how they feel. I’m not going to tell any woman who works how she should feel. I have no comment to make about women who work as, guess what, it’s none of my business! Basically, I just think, good for them. I couldn’t imagine being on a thread proclaiming x,y,z about random women in random jobs on the internet.

Yet strangely, those who are not SAHM and have no intention of ever being so are still on here, 21 pages in. Ask yourselves why you even care so much about women who SAH that you have so much to say and won’t let it drop? What’s that even about?

For me it's a professional interest. I research this for a living so I find these threads interesting. Is that okay with you?

Anyway, the whole thing is nonsense and women should not be feeling insecure about anything. Do your job; look after your kids; do what works for you and your husband and be done with it. If advice is asked for give it. If not, read the room and drop it.

Anyway, the whole thing is nonsense and women should not be feeling insecure about anything. Do your job; look after your kids; do what works for you and your husband and be done with it.

Absolutely this

Anyway, the whole thing is nonsense and women should not be feeling insecure about anything. Do your job; look after your kids; do what works for you and your husband and be done with it. If advice is asked for give it. If not, read the room and drop it.

Absolutely

@paloma10

Yet strangely, those who are not SAHM and have no intention of ever being so are still on here, 21 pages in. Ask yourselves why you even care so much about women who SAH that you have so much to say and won’t let it drop? What’s that even about?

I think the last couple of pages are a glaring example of insecurity, if ever I saw it .

But you know, fair enough, if some women feel like that, then that’s how they feel. I’m not going to tell any woman who works how she should feel. I have no comment to make about women who work as, guess what, it’s none of my business! Basically, I just think, good for them. I couldn’t imagine being on a thread proclaiming x,y,z about random women in random jobs on the internet.

"I don't understand. I went to a place, I had reasons, and other people were there too! What's wrong with them?"

Fair enough Boca. I’m not sure AIBU is really representative of real life, but it is “interesting” at times, for sure.

What is your research focus?

It is because the work SAHMs do is not and has never been valued in society. When mine were little, I could not work. I did not have parents who could look after mine very often as they all had health issues. The ones saying you need to work, in my experience are the ones who either have grandparents on tap, or who have jobs where they can actually afford the childcare/childminder. Doing work in the home and bringing up a family is the hardest work you will ever do. It's the next generation to take over the reins and I have never understood why it isn't valued more. I never had the high-flying career, would have liked it but my circumstances just didn't allow till the children were older. Oh, I got criticism for staying at home, criticism for going to work and the harshest critics are women. In the end s*d pleasing anybody else and do your thing that is the best for yourself and your family. Not all SAHMs are sat on the couch watching TV all day. I certainly wasn't. I also did some voluntary work in the community, as it could fit around school. It also meant if my children were ill or an unexpected day off, I could be with them.If you think SAHM is for you then do it. If going back to work is for you, and childcare is affordable/not an issue, then do it. Ignore the critics.

I have a couple of friends who are SAH wives, they don't even children!

good for them.

Motherloaded, a very much needed bit of humour- thank you.

@paloma10

Fair enough Boca. I’m not sure AIBU is really representative of real life, but it is “interesting” at times, for sure.

What is your research focus?

Don't worry I'm not using it as credible research data!

I'm a university academic and one of my specific research areas is women's career development which includes how women participate in the labour market as well as why women choose not to participate.
It allows us to to identify barriers and enablers as well as challenge societal expectations and stereotypes.

It is because the work SAHMs do is not and has never been valued in society. When mine were little, I could not work. I did not have parents who could look after mine very often as they all had health issues. The ones saying you need to work, in my experience are the ones who either have grandparents on tap, or who have jobs where they can actually afford the childcare/childminder.

I totally agree with this.

The question is why isn't it valued?

My theory is that we live in a very capitalist society. Success is perceived by our social status and how much money we earn. If we are at home, caring for children or even elderly relatives, it is not valued because this is something someone else could easily do. It is not surprising that those who work in childcare or social care aren't seen as high status people, either - even though the work can be quite challenging both physically and mentally. But it is, at least, valued slightly more than someone who is doing this unpaid.

I do wonder how SAH women are looked at in other cultures, where there is a slower pace of life and fewer capitalist values. I don't actually think it is 100% due to the patriarchy - it's our entrenched attitudes to money, success, social class.

What form would this value take?

Of course people should respect your choice/circumstances and not be rude, but what exactly is meant by "value" in this context? How would it be demonstrated?

I'm a university academic and one of my specific research areas is women's career development which includes how women participate in the labour market as well as why women choose not to participate.
It allows us to to identify barriers and enablers as well as challenge societal expectations and stereotypes.

This seems to be coming from the premise that all women want career development. The notion of there being a barrier to this indicates that. Of course, some really do but not all by any means. This means going back to the uncomfortable SAHM vs working parent debate and unravelling the reasons why people make their choices, which aren't cut and dried.

If we were to take away the negativity of making this choice for a myraid of reasons, perhaps some men might also find this appealing. I think men who choose to SAH get an even worse roasting than women. Only then could we achieve true equality - if we all accepted that there are just different ways of doing things.

This seems to be coming from the premise that all women want career development. The notion of there being a barrier to this indicates that. Of course, some really do but not all by any means. This means going back to the uncomfortable SAHM vs working parent debate and unravelling the reasons why people make their choices, which aren't cut and dried.

It's not.
I'm a lecturer in career development so I look at it from the perspective of multiple groups. I also do a lot of research into fair access to higher education.

It's an acknowledgement that women participate in the labour market differently to men. It's important to understand why that is as it allows us to design career support programmes that can support different groups. There is no value judgement taking place.
However, there are still barriers which are unique to women. Acknowledging those isn't saying all women must pursue a career.

And when I say women's career development I'm talking about all women not just mothers.

@themuttsnutts

It is because the work SAHMs do is not and has never been valued in society. When mine were little, I could not work. I did not have parents who could look after mine very often as they all had health issues. The ones saying you need to work, in my experience are the ones who either have grandparents on tap, or who have jobs where they can actually afford the childcare/childminder.

I totally agree with this.

The question is why isn't it valued?

My theory is that we live in a very capitalist society. Success is perceived by our social status and how much money we earn. If we are at home, caring for children or even elderly relatives, it is not valued because this is something someone else could easily do. It is not surprising that those who work in childcare or social care aren't seen as high status people, either - even though the work can be quite challenging both physically and mentally. But it is, at least, valued slightly more than someone who is doing this unpaid.

I do wonder how SAH women are looked at in other cultures, where there is a slower pace of life and fewer capitalist values. I don't actually think it is 100% due to the patriarchy - it's our entrenched attitudes to money, success, social class.

It's not valued because looking after a child you brought into this world and decided to have is the bare minimum. Having kids is a lifestyle choice. Why should society value it?

Sure, your partner and children should value it but not everyone cares about family/having kids and not everyone believes you need to be a SAHM to have children.

I think the reason why being a SAHP isn't valued is because working parents also make sure their children are looked after. So really it is just the bare minimum that you should be ready for when deciding to have children.

In what way would you say women participate differently in the labour market? I know that, when you are talking about mothers, it is fairly obvious, if we want to generalise, but how would this work with younger women or women who decide not to/or who can't have children? Surely it's a level playing field in the case of the latter - unless we are just talking about employer's right or wrong perceptions that all women are going to go off on maternity leave at some point?

When I was in my early 20s, before children came along (and this was in the 90s) , I really didn't notice much of a gulf between men and women in the workplace. I actually didn't notice all that much sexism in general society until I got married and had children. I do think that having a family changes things totally and we revert to more traditional roles without really thinking about it

Firstly, I don't see having a family as a lifestyle choice. Buying a yacht or moving to the country is a lifestyle choice. I see it more as a very common rite of passage, which has been going on for centuries - before the advent of our need for more material comforts. I don't put it in the same bracket. At all.

Why should society value it? Well, because it's hard blooming work. The fact that, if you do go out to work, you have to pay someone to do it all day because children don't look after themselves would be one thing.

Another thing is that, one day, the child who is a big burden and drain on society will be an adult - and will be an adult longer than it will be a child. And they will be paying into the system until retirement.

Also, the vast majority of families with a SAP have this set up because they can afford for one not to work and so they are provided for.

And, also, you haven't touched on my point about caring for elderly parents, which someone also would have to be paid for if I didn't do it. And, again, growing old is another one of life's rites of passages, I'm afraid.

@FloconDeNeige

Judging by the amount of tetchy defensiveness from some SAHMs on this thread alone, it appears fairly obvious that those who are truly secure in their choice, are few and far between. Which is fine, people are allowed to change their minds. Just don’t take it out on the rest of us!

Unfair comment. You suggested im not secure in my choice earlier too.

You can be secure in your decision and willing to debate and 'defend' it. I think you confuse defence with explanation actually.

You could equally argue the fact that you are commenting so extensively on this means maybe you aren't secure in your choice to work outside the home. But I wouldn't actually suggest that myself as this is a forum where people come to debate and that would be quite a belittling approach to take

In what way would you say women participate differently in the labour market?
Women are more likely to work part time and choose careers/ organisations which offer flexible working - this, in the main, can be linked directly to childcare/caring responsibilities. It's important to remember that women are more likely than men to take on the caring responsibilities of elderly relatives as well as childcare.

However, we also see a difference in subject and career choices from quite a young age - this isn't related to whether you have a child or not. Although there is some evidence that women/girls will choose a sector perceived to be family friendly on an unconscious level.

We also see differences in career progression. It's not uncommon for an organisation/sector to be female dominated but have more male senior leaders. This is an important issue to address.

I know that, when you are talking about mothers, it is fairly obvious, if we want to generalise, but how would this work with younger women or women who decide not to/or who can't have children? Surely it's a level playing field in the case of the latter - unless we are just talking about employer's right or wrong perceptions that all women are going to go off on maternity leave at some point?

It's really not a level playing field. We're a long way off although the inequalities are more stark when looking at mothers. Unfortunately the last year has set back progress significantly on this front.

That’s very interesting Boca. I think ultimately, it’s very difficult to extricate internalised factors from external barriers when it’s comes to women’s working patterns. And I do agree with mutts, that everything changes when kids come along and couples revert to more traditional roles instinctively.