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?

@thepeopleversuswork I agree with a lot of what you say. My experience has been though that on mumsnet at least, those insensitive and inflammatory comments made by SAHM's are either not made at all or are eventually made in frustrated retaliation to all the negative comments about staying at home. It tends to be more "I could never sponge off my husband like that" or "I'd never want a child of mine to do something so foolish"

I think that's the OP's point

or are eventually made in frustrated retaliation to all the negative comments about staying at home

I can’t say I agree with this. I’ve seen plenty of pre-emotive shot taking. I’d say both sides are as bad as each other really.

@TheKeatingFive fair enough! I'm on the SAHM feeling guilty about my decision side so I'd probably notice more the negative comments directed at my kind of situation

One theme that comes back almost systematically when referring to being a sahm is that notion that they have sacrificed their own career and earning potential to support their oh and therefore should be entitled to half of everything married or not.

I really don’t get this. A sacrifice means giving up something you want to do to the benefit of someone else. The implication in this case is that had the sahm not given up her job, her OH couldn’t have been as successful.

Yet many single parents manage to have successful careers. Many families have to parents pursuing their career successfully. So what do they have/do that these sahm stating they had no choice but to give up their career don’t?

I really don’t buy it at all. Not that they gave up something they really wanted to pursue because they had no choice in order for their OH to be themselves successful.

I'm on the SAHM feeling guilty about my decision side so I'd probably notice more the negative comments directed at my kind of situation

Totally natural. I probably the other way.

I was a sahm for 6 years for selfish reasons. I wanted to do it sure my kids would have been absolutely fine with a nanny. For pretty much everyone I know it’s a life stage - so don’t get why it’s so divisive everyone I know who was a sahm has gone back to work now anyway.

@thepeopleversuswork your post in itself actually comes across very inflammatory! You have highlighted the fact that you don't believe there is evidence that childcare damages children (sweeping statement, clearly depends on specific childcare and child etc), have highlighted that there is lots of evidence that being at home can hinder financial prospects, and then finished by saying there is no evidence that a person's choice to spend 'precious' time at home with their kids is doing them or their child any favours.

How do you measure whether it has 'done any favours'? If someone is saying that the benefit is 'precious time' which you take offense to, then how can you say there is no benefit? The benefit IS the 'precious' time surely??
This is what is wrong with these debates. People get so defensive and insecure. I'm a working parent, and I'm perfectly able to accept that I do miss out on precious time. I don't need to try to belittle SAHMs by pretending they or their kids don't benefit at all from being with their kids. My 5 year old was in tears yesterday when I said I couldn't pick him up till after the second session of after school club cause I had a meeting, so he would be there till 6. I also dopped my 1 year old baby screaming at the childminder at 8am.
Of course that hurts me!! But I believe in the long term we are making the best choices we can by me working, but I accept there are trade offs.
I know for some you have no choice and that makes it very very tough but that shouldn't stop SAHMs from being able to justify their own choices and defend themselves in these debates where they are told they are lazy and worthless.

If a working mum justified her choice by saying she has more money for family holidays and pension, would a SAHM say 'im offended, stop parroting on about your pension and holiday' no they wouldn't, because it is just a fact that working earns you money, just as it is a fact that not working earns you time.

Yet many single parents manage to have successful careers. Many families have to parents pursuing their career successfully. So what do they have/do that these sahm stating they had no choice but to give up their career don’t?

I always think this argument is pretty dubious too.

I had to give up my career in order to let my DH advance in his.

Well, I can tell you I've managed to advance my career perfectly well while being a single parent with no unpaid support. It's much harder -- you have to work after hours a lot more, it costs more and you are excluded from a lot of the networking events which a married bloke can go to as a matter of course. But its absolutely possible. And with two working parents much more possible than with a lone parent.

So while I can see the argument that having a spouse at home full time enhances the working spouse's ability to be flexible its hardly a necessity. And when blokes bellyache on about how difficult it is for them to advance if their wife works too I just think they are contemptible tbh.

Post hoc special pleading.

“So what do they have/do that these sahm stating they had no choice but to give up their career don’t”

Some women do feel as if they had to give up their career because this is their husband’s expectation. I’m not saying he’ll tell her to SAH directly (though this happens as well obviously). The pressure can be quite subtle.

Quite often SAHMs are not sure whether they’re doing what they want to do or what they’re husband wants them to do and it’s not clear cut. Please do bear this in mind too.

Also not everyone has a husband they can just leave young children with. Not all men will do it. Some women do genuinely feel that they can’t leave their husband alone with babies or young children. Also not everyone has a husband who will work flexibly. I think some people have no clue on here sometimes when they say, “Oh just tell him to cut his hours and do x,y,z instead.”

@Drunkenmonkey

How do you measure whether it has 'done any favours'? If someone is saying that the benefit is 'precious time' which you take offense to, then how can you say there is no benefit? The benefit IS the 'precious' time surely??

That's precisely my point. You can't measure this. Its conjecture, steeped in moral guilt with a heavy helping of social obligation and misogyny. "Precious time" is a lovely idea but its absolutely not empirical proof that something is inherently better for children.

It's therefore inflammatory for women who have had the option of spending this "precious time" at home, with absolutely no hard evidence that its necessary, to suggest that women who haven't are disadvantaging their children.

There are also WOHMs who say inflammatory things to SAHMs. But at least their argument has some intellectual rigour and consistency. It does demonstrably damage your economic wellbeing if you take a long time out of the workforce and depend entirely on another person.

That's not to say that its cool for WOHMs to tell SAHMs that they are thick. But there's no getting away from the fact that the "moral" argument for staying at home doesn't really hold water.

@vivainsomnia

One theme that comes back almost systematically when referring to being a sahm is that notion that they have sacrificed their own career and earning potential to support their oh and therefore should be entitled to half of everything married or not.

I really don’t get this. A sacrifice means giving up something you want to do to the benefit of someone else. The implication in this case is that had the sahm not given up her job, her OH couldn’t have been as successful.

Yet many single parents manage to have successful careers. Many families have to parents pursuing their career successfully. So what do they have/do that these sahm stating they had no choice but to give up their career don’t?

I really don’t buy it at all. Not that they gave up something they really wanted to pursue because they had no choice in order for their OH to be themselves successful.

Of course it can be done but it is usually much easier to build a career or business without having any constrictions due to childcare. No missing a critical meeting with a potential new customer because your child is ill and your partner can't take time off either because they are working away, being able to stay late and get extra done in a competitive environment etc etc

I know that I got to my level in a previous job at least in part because I did many, many hours over time (and my hours were long anyway). If I'd returned to my job, my DH would have needed to do all of the nursery picks ups and bedtimes. It wasn't possible to do the job in less hours or part time. That would have meant he couldn't have taken the opportunity he had to start a new business. One or the other of us would have to compromise.

It wasn't a totally selfless sacrifice because I actually wanted to be at home, but it has definitely helped DH's business

[quote MyPetSaurus]@thepeopleversuswork I agree with a lot of what you say. My experience has been though that on mumsnet at least, those insensitive and inflammatory comments made by SAHM's are either not made at all or are eventually made in frustrated retaliation to all the negative comments about staying at home. It tends to be more "I could never sponge off my husband like that" or "I'd never want a child of mine to do something so foolish"

I think that's the OP's point[/quote]
Completely agree with this.

Quite often SAHMs are not sure whether they’re doing what they want to do or what they’re husband wants them to do and it’s not clear cut. Please do bear this in mind too.

This is true: its a huge problem.

And its all the more reason why we should be suspicious when women who have had their career curtailed by their husband tell women who do work that FT childcare is damaging to their children.

@thepeopleversuswork

But there's no getting away from the fact that the "moral" argument for staying at home doesn't really hold water.

I don't think it's about having a moral argument or saying my choice is better than yours or vice versa.

It's just a different choice, made for many reasons. Although I acknowledge some who work have no choice, and some who stay at home have no choice either (childcare/family support/other pressures)

My point in my opening post was let's stop implying one way of doing things is better than another..it depends on individual circumstances.

[quote MyPetSaurus]@thepeopleversuswork I agree with a lot of what you say. My experience has been though that on mumsnet at least, those insensitive and inflammatory comments made by SAHM's are either not made at all or are eventually made in frustrated retaliation to all the negative comments about staying at home. It tends to be more "I could never sponge off my husband like that" or "I'd never want a child of mine to do something so foolish"

I think that's the OP's point[/quote]
I think it's been evidenced fairly well on this thread actually

[quote MyPetSaurus]@thepeopleversuswork I agree with a lot of what you say. My experience has been though that on mumsnet at least, those insensitive and inflammatory comments made by SAHM's are either not made at all or are eventually made in frustrated retaliation to all the negative comments about staying at home. It tends to be more "I could never sponge off my husband like that" or "I'd never want a child of mine to do something so foolish"

I think that's the OP's point[/quote]
I think its six of one and half a dozen of the other TBH. Both sides have the potential to be spiteful and inflammatory. Some WOHMs make smug comments (myself included, probably).

But feeling that people are attacking your moral compass and your love for your children when you're doing something to ensure their survival will do that to you.

@thepeopleversuswork you sound so defensive. It's not about whether it necessarily disadvantages children in a measurable capacity. How can that be measured anyway? You're not comparing two sausage machines and seeing what gets spat out at the other end fgs, it's about how enjoyable life is for parent and child all throughout.

I actually think it's very rare for a sahm to say 'you are disadvantaging your child by working'
They usually say they do it because they believe it's nice for them and for their child to spend time together and it makes it work better as a family to have less stress and more time.
Do I think my baby benefits from being in childcare? Absolutely not. I fucking hate it.
I started a thread recently asking for help as my baby wasn't settling at all. Do I think my baby will be long term disadvantaged by being in childcare? No probably not. But it doesn't mean they wouldn't rather be at home with me right now (and me with them) and gain benefit from that. It shouldn't be offensive to working mums to highlight the benefits of being at home and vice versa.

@Drunkenmonkey

I am totally defensive and totally prepared to own this. As I've said, when people infer that something you are doing to guarantee your child's survival is potentially damaging to them it does make you defensive. Particularly when a) these people have choices that you don't and b) there's no proof that what you're doing has any negative impact.

And on your point about SAHMs saying working damages children they absolutely do. I have lost count of the number of threads when someone comes on here and says: "you'll never get the time back".

As if this hadn't occurred to us...

I admit to making smug comments occasionally as a wohm. I’ve been told I’m not as maternal as SAHM’s or I’d be one, I’m letting other people raise my children and they’ll get more attached to their childminder. So I’m defensive about it. Ironically I have a much better, more loving relationship with my children than the family member who told me I wasn’t as maternal as them. Basically as Mums we’re all damned so you’ve just got to do what’s right for you. I’m confident I made the right decision to return to work as I have 2 lovely children who I have amazing relationships with, they’re very loving in a not needy way, have everything they need, get lots of opportunities and yet we still have lots of family time all weekend every weekend and we spend every evening as a family.

[quote thepeopleversuswork]@Drunkenmonkey

I am totally defensive and totally prepared to own this. As I've said, when people infer that something you are doing to guarantee your child's survival is potentially damaging to them it does make you defensive. Particularly when a) these people have choices that you don't and b) there's no proof that what you're doing has any negative impact.

And on your point about SAHMs saying working damages children they absolutely do. I have lost count of the number of threads when someone comes on here and says: "you'll never get the time back".

As if this hadn't occurred to us...[/quote]
@thepeopleversuswork

And on your point about SAHMs saying working damages children they absolutely do. I have lost count of the number of threads when someone comes on here and says: "you'll never get the time back".

As if this hadn't occurred to us...

This is how I feel about being told sahm are risking future financial security. It's bloody obvious to me if I don't work for a few years it's going to affect my pension!

@Fixitup2

I admit to making smug comments occasionally as a wohm. I’ve been told I’m not as maternal as SAHM’s or I’d be one, I’m letting other people raise my children and they’ll get more attached to their childminder. So I’m defensive about it. Ironically I have a much better, more loving relationship with my children than the family member who told me I wasn’t as maternal as them. Basically as Mums we’re all damned so you’ve just got to do what’s right for you. I’m confident I made the right decision to return to work as I have 2 lovely children who I have amazing relationships with, they’re very loving in a not needy way, have everything they need, get lots of opportunities and yet we still have lots of family time all weekend every weekend and we spend every evening as a family.

Whoever said that to you was cruel and wrong. Making smug comments on MN (I assume it's on here..correct me if I'm wrong) kind of makes you just as bad though

Live and let live! You are right we are damned either way

@thepeopleversuswork ok fair enough. I think we are possibly arguing about different things. I would never support someone saying 'you are disadvantaging your child working, you never get the time back' especially if they don't have a choice and I can see why that would be upsetting.
But equally I do think a sahm should be able to say they choose to be at home as they believe it benefits their children to have them around, without worrying about offending working parents who can't do the same. It's a highly emotive topic.

@Sweak I'm also wondering if it's a regional thing too as where I'm from there is a huge mix of different jobs that mums do and there's probably more part time than full time. I'd say being a sahm here isn't seen as anything awful at all and nobody ever asks you why you haven't gone back to work or what you'll do if your husband were to run off or offer advise about having our own finances and likewise nobody is critical about working mums either, we all just get on with it

thepeopleversuswork
I agree with you.
The difference between the 2 arguments is that one is based on explaining tangible financial implications and the other is based on vague moralising that assumes an intrinsic value.

I don't mind what individual women do, as long as it is an informed decision and they accept the consequences of those decisions (eg don't give up work for 10 years, not consider your financial security because DP is lovely and then come on Mumsnet saying it's unfair that you don't get half the house in the split because "I made all these sacrifices for OUR children").

I do think on a societal level there are questions about why so many men make one decision (usually to remain in full time work) and why the majority of SAHP are usually women.
I also think it's worth being aware that there's sometimes some illogical claims where DH couldn't do his share of pick ups, couldn't be off with poorly children, couldn't work flexibly, couldn't go part time, couldn't take shared parental leave etc because it would far too damaging to his career, but then when people encourage women to think about the impact of their choices on their career posters are quick to argue that it's quite easy to walk back into employment, there's no problem going back into your career, you easily get to where up left off.

I'm not sure whether time out of work would hinder your financial and career prospects more if you happen to be in possession of a penis. It seems to go hand in hand with the number of men who seem very aware of the legal implications of marriage (so kick the issue into the long grass, come out with "butwhy do we need to get married? We have children together and that's a bigger commitment" bollocks), and the number of women on here who seem adamant that their DP is wonderful and has promised them he'd let her and the kids stay in the house if they split.

[quote Tittyfilarious]@Sweak I'm also wondering if it's a regional thing too as where I'm from there is a huge mix of different jobs that mums do and there's probably more part time than full time. I'd say being a sahm here isn't seen as anything awful at all and nobody ever asks you why you haven't gone back to work or what you'll do if your husband were to run off or offer advise about having our own finances and likewise nobody is critical about working mums either, we all just get on with it[/quote]
I think it's an internet thing. When people hide behind a keyboard they feel they can say anything. Whether that's being abusive or acting superior by dishing out financial advice when it's not appropriate (sometimes it is depending on the post)

It's could also be the nature of MN being somewhere where people post problems so it opens up these types of comments.

I'm sure regions also have an impact too though