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?

I agree OP, though recognise what some posters are saying about financial protection, and that the cost of childcare in the short term will likely be far outweighed by benefit of career development in long term when returning to work place

But I can say that I WAS secure in my choice to take a short time out for two very small children before returning to the workplace, having considered all angles, yet now I find myself very apologetic and somewhat deflated after reading thread after thread about it. I now feel quite embarrassed if someone asks if I'm working and I say not for another year or so. To be fair that probably says more about me than mumsnet, and I should just not read them

And, actually, I don't believe that all women should be SAHMs (I have worked since my eldest was 1). I don't believe that all work should work, either.

I believe in choice either way without judgment. There is no such thing as 'should'

women should work

or even men!

Exactly Muttsmutss I'm so fed up of the narrative that having children is solely a "lifestyle" choice like playing golf.

Yes it's a choice but it is one that will have a marked impact on society if no one decides to have DC. Whereas mankind won't cease to exist if everyone suddenly decides to shun the golf course.

And in the short term, who are golfers expecting to look after them when they are too frail to swing a club?

Surely if the pandemic has taught us anything, it's that looking after young DC and working are not particularly compatible and that we should value our teachers, and nursery workers, and those in the caring professions far more than we do currently.

@themuttsnutts

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.

I very much disagree with this. It is a lifestyle choice. Some people don’t have children or don’t have as many children as they’d like because of finances.

It also depends where you live whether SAHM’s are SAHM’s because they can afford it. Where I am, and I work with families, it is extremely rare a SAHM has a partner working on a full time high earning wage. SAHMs here can’t afford to work because childcare often costs more than their minimum wage job pays. The partner, if there is one, often is on a zero hour, minimum wage contract. They are forced to be SAHM’s.

themuttsnutts sorry I got your NN wrong there!

Of course you take into account finances as that is just sensible and responsible (although not everyone is but that is another thread). I just think the word, lifestyle, makes it sound so frivolous - like going on a package holiday - and I totally disagree with it.

For the record, I am a working parent due to the fact that we need two incomes

I think ultimately, it’s very difficult to extricate internalised factors from external barriers when it’s comes to women’s working patterns.

It's literally my job to attempt to do this!!

And I do agree with mutts, that everything changes when kids come along and couples revert to more traditional roles instinctively.

And it's useful to understand why this happens. Although this is a very broad generalisation to make! There's a discussion around whether this is instinct or societal expectations!

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.

The hardness of a job or otherwise has little to do with how much it is valued by society.

Paying other people to look after children is objectively better for the economy and tax take - putting all other considerations aside

I wouldn’t consider having children a choice over ones lifetime, but it is to go ahead and have one or more when not financially secure.

If you are on a low income as a couple, then wait until you can improve the situation before having children.

Looking after 1 or 2 kids can be hard, but in my case never harder than the jobs I’ve had. Not counting that the hardest part of parenting is what’s done in the mornings and evenings, so outside of standard working hours.

I wouldn't base my decision as to whether or not to place my children in a childcare on the basis of the economy. Who does? It's an individual choice.

I think, if you are not sitting on your arse all day and are actually doing something then it should be worth something.

If you are staying at home to look after your children, you are making a massive saving as a family if you don't have a career. A lot of childcare is subsidised by tax credits/universal credit as well.

For some, it is uneconomical to go out to work. For others, it may not work practically, logistically, emotionally or from a mental health point of view. It is not just parents in this situation, either. There are some who can't work full time for health reasons, either.

The whole question about how to "value" the work done by SAHPs is a fascinating one: because SAHMs are right, ethically and morally, that their work is hugely undervalued by society.

But there's a big challenge with the "society should recompense SAHMs" argument - aside from the economics of it -- and that is how to make that work without basically entrenching social conservatism and antifeminism.

It's all very well to ask for economic policy which incentivises SAHPs. Nice idea in theory. But in practice if that played out what it would actually do is make it much harder for women to work if they have to or choose to. If there were financial incentives to promote stay at home parenthood it would invariably lead to more women being pushed into SAHP roles, whether they want them or not (because I guarantee you men in general would not want these roles). That would lead to a social narrative which would be much more unfavourable to working mothers. Which would leave people like me (I have to work because I'm a LP and have no-one else to depend upon financially) up shit creek.

So while I sympathise morally with the argument that SAHPs are undervalued, I actually think trying to create financial incentives to make it more attractive would just set us all back to the 1950s.

if you are on a low income as a couple, then wait until you can improve the situation before having children.

Sometimes this situation arises after you have children. This happened to us. That is life, unfortunately and there is no way of predicting it. We managed to turn it round but it wasn't easy.

It’s not being horrible. There’s a huge number of parents on here and many will be coming from a place of experience. Experience of being a SAHP and potentially experienced financial difficulties because of it. It’s almost like a warning system and a very valid one at that. I do think you leave yourself extremely vulnerable if you lose all financial independence. It’s all very well your partner covering everything while you stay at home but what if the worst happens or they leave for someone else? Where does that leave you?

I do think it’s a shame that highly educated and successful women do give it all up to SAHP. There’s so many opportunities out there nowadays and encouragement for women in the workplace it just seems like it’s wasted

I agree with a PP who mentioned the busy managing life admin, dentist appointments, paying bills. Really how much time a day do you spend doing those things? Most people nowadays have all bills on direct debit and unless you have a chronic condition it’s unlikely you’re ringing the dentist every day

I am not arguing for financial incentives. As it stands, we have more for getting women out to work.

I am talking about valuing it from a more personal point of view - even if you don't actually want to do it. I'm talking about acceptance of different ways of doing things - be that working or staying at home.

I agree with the OP here about the degree of negativity surrounding those who can/choose to stay at home.

It used to be the norm to live off one salary when you had children and, theoretically, I would like to see that being a possibility. It doesn't matter if it is the man or woman earning it.

There's a discussion around whether this is instinct or societal expectations

I think it’s both and one informs the other.

@stickydancefloor

It’s not being horrible. There’s a huge number of parents on here and many will be coming from a place of experience. Experience of being a SAHP and potentially experienced financial difficulties because of it. It’s almost like a warning system and a very valid one at that. I do think you leave yourself extremely vulnerable if you lose all financial independence. It’s all very well your partner covering everything while you stay at home but what if the worst happens or they leave for someone else? Where does that leave you?

I do think it’s a shame that highly educated and successful women do give it all up to SAHP. There’s so many opportunities out there nowadays and encouragement for women in the workplace it just seems like it’s wasted

I agree with a PP who mentioned the busy managing life admin, dentist appointments, paying bills. Really how much time a day do you spend doing those things? Most people nowadays have all bills on direct debit and unless you have a chronic condition it’s unlikely you’re ringing the dentist every day

I'm educated and my career was successful. I don't think you should consider it a 'shame' or a 'waste'. Being a sahp doesn't need to a life long decision. You can use your education again when returning to work. It's even possible for some to retrain in a different field.

I really do think MN makes out like if you take a few years out you will never have a successful career ever again. I don't buy it.

I agree. I have taken out a lot of years from a career. Even though I have been unable to use my education in a career sense, I have volunteered and have done bits and pieces of freelance work to keep my brain active.

@themuttsnutts

I wouldn't base my decision as to whether or not to place my children in a childcare on the basis of the economy. Who does? It's an individual choice.

I think, if you are not sitting on your arse all day and are actually doing something then it should be worth something.

If you are staying at home to look after your children, you are making a massive saving as a family if you don't have a career. A lot of childcare is subsidised by tax credits/universal credit as well.

For some, it is uneconomical to go out to work. For others, it may not work practically, logistically, emotionally or from a mental health point of view. It is not just parents in this situation, either. There are some who can't work full time for health reasons, either.

No one is saying you should. You’ve missed the point.

If you are staying at home to look after your children, you are making a massive saving as a family if you don't have a career. A lot of childcare is subsidised by tax credits/universal credit as well

The former isn’t good for the wider economy. The latter means money circulated in the economy which creates value.

For some, it is uneconomical to go out to work. For others, it may not work practically, logistically, emotionally or from a mental health point of view. It is not just parents in this situation, either. There are some who can't work full time for health reasons, either. Yes the wider considerations I said we’re excluded from my point.

@MyPetSaurus

I agree OP, though recognise what some posters are saying about financial protection, and that the cost of childcare in the short term will likely be far outweighed by benefit of career development in long term when returning to work place

But I can say that I WAS secure in my choice to take a short time out for two very small children before returning to the workplace, having considered all angles, yet now I find myself very apologetic and somewhat deflated after reading thread after thread about it. I now feel quite embarrassed if someone asks if I'm working and I say not for another year or so. To be fair that probably says more about me than mumsnet, and I should just not read them

People in RL I find don't tend to care much! I've had the odd when you are going back question but nothing like what I read on here!

On this thread I have made it clear I understood the long term implications and still decided for our family it was better to take a few years out. But if seems some posters can't understand my way of thinking...it's not like there are no benefits of being a sahm! I agree it's not a decision to take lightly though.

For me, in the short term, I recognise that going back to workplace after four years out will be harder and that overall I'll have lost out far more than that in terms of career trajectory but I think this is a risk just like many others in life which may or may not pay off for me. There's no doubt it has helped my DH's career and if he leaves I hope that at least the kids would see some benefit of that even if it's acrimonious and I don't

If it doesn't pay off for me, my only real concern is that I can offer my children opportunities and that I'm not a burden to my children in later life. I'm reasonably confident I can make sure of that and I don't really need that much myself. Not being a martyr but that's just the way I see it - it's a risk I'm taking and I accept that thus my only concern would be others being negatively affected ie my kids

On the other hand if DH and I stay together, it will have worked out really well for everyone including the DC, especially one who has a condition and has needed care during and after hospital etc that would have been much more difficult if we were both working in the early years.

We do also have life and illness cover etc

*I agree with the OP here about the degree of negativity surrounding those who can/choose to stay at home.

It used to be the norm to live off one salary when you had children and, theoretically, I would like to see that being a possibility. It doesn't matter if it is the man or woman earning it.*

It's motherhood and apple pie to say there should be less negativity about people's choices. Of course there should, that's blindingly obvious.

The question is why these choices are still so emotive and why people find it so difficult, on both sides, to be non-judgemental.

What's interesting to me is that the primary argument made on the SAHM camp (to put it crudely) is a moral one: ie that its at some level neglectful or risks damage to leave your children in the care of others. While the primary argument on the WOHM camp is an economic one.

From my perspective as a WOHM what it boils down to is that I think the argument against us is primarily unsound. Its based on vague moral hangups and suspicion. What upsets me personally about the charges are that the argument that we are neglecting our children is made routinely but without any real supporting evidence, despite numerous studies having been done into the topic over many years. It's all based on vague "it stands to reason" logic.

And the motives attributed to us are often just that we want a bigger car/nice shoes etc. Which, if you're someone who has no choice but to work, is actually quite offensive.

On the WOHM side there are a lot of goady comments about how being a SAHM "rots your brain" etc which are just nasty and unnecessary, I grant you. But there is a genuine issue about women being made vulnerable by being over-dependent on their partner. Which has a potentially severe knock-on effect on the children.

Net/net, there's a not of kneejerk, emotional reactions on both sides and we probably all need to take a step back a bit.

But I do think that those in the camp that say SAHM is the best case scenario need to take on board that their fundamental case, which draws on a lot of moral guilt, vague feelings and old-fashioned judgement, is actually pretty unscientific.

My point earlier - we are a capitalist society and we measure value in terms of money. This should stop and value should be measured in other ways.