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?

@5zeds

Your verbatim quote was:

Honestly I think people are rude to those who choose to live on one wage because they want to feel good about their choices and do have regrets/doubts.

To me the clear implication of this statement is that you think that those women who choose to work feel guilty about doing so and families who live on one wage (ie that of the breadwinner and in 90% of cases the man) are morally superior (because one person is at home full time with the kids). And that if you choose to work to supplement the family income you are doing so at the cost of your children's wellbeing.

Your situation doesn't directly apply to me because I am a single parent and I have no choice but to work -- and I resent it when people imply that I'm morally inferior by doing this because I have no choice. But if I had a breadwinning husband and still chose to work, either FT or part time (which in all honesty I would probably choose to do) I would find it insulting to have you sitting in judgement upon me for daring to supplement the household income because a single-income household is inherently superior.

I'm sorry if you think I'm flogging a dead horse, but I'm not sure what other conclusion you expect me to draw from what you said. And tbh I find it really offensive.

I’m not sure how you’ve drawn those conclusions. I don’t think there’s anything morally inferior about a parent working outside of the home, or working within the home for money or being a non earning sahp. I’m sorry that my opinion that people being down on SAHP is because they have concerns about their own model/choices offends you.

@choli what's wrong with being a web developer?

5zeds - it will be for some people, but certainly not all and probably not the majority. Some people just think their way is best and a subset of them will berate others for making different choices.

I agree that SAHM shouldn't be looked down on, ive been one and frankly it can be more demanding than going to work- but also more rewarding.
The pre school years go so quickly and I wanted to be with DC , I didn't like the idea of only spending an hour or two with them a day apart from weekends.

But I do think it can place you in a vulnerable position, if you have professional qualifications it gives you a certain amount of protection, if you left school with GCSE/ A levels and worked your way up its harder to return to work at the same level that you left.
I wouldnt be a SAHM without being married or without equal access to money.
Definitely agree mums should stick together support eachother and respect others choices.

Some people just think their way is best and a subset of them will berate others for making different choices. I think this is true but OPs question was WHY people do that? I was offering (a rather surprisingly contentious as it turns out) theory.

@Pennethorne I think you’re proving the opposite point actually. You had to learn to code and go on an entire course to get a job! Whereas people are talking about just walking back into the job market with a 2 or x number of years gap in the CV. Also you clearly did have free time while most of the threads on here are SAHM complaining that they have ‘no time to even sit down’ or that their DP won’t give them any money

Thanks for proving all these points !

[quote Drunkenmonkey]@choli what's wrong with being a web developer?[/quote]
Nothing. But looking down at other working people from the dizzy heights of a web developer is pretty laughable.

@choli 'laughable' sounds so sneery and unpleasant. Good on PP for training to be one. Excellent career move. Train as a full stack and the average UK salary is 50k, flexible working, can work from anywhere, go freelance and you can earn way more and this can all happen in a very short space of time if you put your mind to it and the initial outlay is low.

I don't agree with anyone being 'smug' about anything but to be honest when as a sahm you hear constant whining about how you'll never work again, career suicide, you'll be washing dishes in the local pub till you're 75 when your husband's left you for his PA etc, then it would be hard not to feel a sense of self satisfaction when the opposite occurs. A friend of mine did it and within a year was out earning her high earning husband who had climbed the ladder for 18 years.
It's actually a perfect example of the career options available to someone who does decide to sahm and how you can make it work if you put your mind to it and have a plan.

If AIBU is anything to go by, the most financially abused women tend not to be SAHMs, but those who are in work (on a lower salary than the DH), but have totally separate finances. I can’t believe how many women seem to be in this position and tell themselves it’s “independence” or whatever. Surely, this is like letting your husband have his cake and eat it? How could you have any respect for such a man?

How many threads are there when the wife is working on a relatively low salary - either because she has had to take (minimum) time out for children; or has to work part time around the children; or maybe she just earns less than her husband anyway. They have separate bank accounts and she has to contribute 50/50 to bills, etc, meaning that she has a pittance to live off while he has much more. Often she has no visibility of his account and no idea how much money he has. She lives like a second class citizen in her own home, like the poor flat mate, essentially.

Why do women let men get away with this? There are husbands who seem to get married seeing no requirement of themselves whatsoever to even financially support their wives through basic maternity leave - letting them just live off the basic pay and then back to work the very day it runs out. It’s as if there no compunction on them to inconvenience themselves at all. Why are we bringing men up with this kind of attitude?

If you get married, you are a unit. If you can share your DNA to bring children into this world then you can share your bank accounts fgs! I can’t understand how any woman would have children with a man who sees fit to treat her like this, but if MN is anything to go by, this set up is common in 2021.

To be honest, I think people only post in AIBU when there’s a problem, so it’s a skewed view. But one thing I would say for the SAH model is that it does tend to be underpinned by the understanding that everything a family has is shared and there’s no “his” and “hers” money, regardless of who earns what. In this sense at least, it’s impossible to have the abusive model that can potentially arise from separate finances (where invariably the woman in the lower earner).

I was a SAHM mainly for mental health reasons as I couldn’t cope with juggling work and kids (at least I thought I couldn’t but on reflection it may have been less stressful to go back to work!!) and I was fortunate that I didn’t need to for financial reasons. I found the attitude of some women to me completely unsupportive and judgemental about my situation. There was one particular group who had quite high powered, interesting and successful jobs and I just knew what they were thinking of me! One even told me.
But then I met a group of more supportive local friends who were also working but less judgmental and more understanding.
I’m now back in work and so happy to have that independence and to know that I could be financially independent if needs be. I would never judge another woman for being SAHM. It’s hard and comes with its own challenges.

don't agree with anyone being 'smug' about anything but to be honest when as a sahm you hear constant whining about how you'll never work again, career suicide, you'll be washing dishes in the local pub till you're 75 when your husband's left you for his PA etc, then it would be hard not to feel a sense of self satisfaction when the opposite occurs. A friend of mine did it and within a year was out earning her high earning husband who had climbed the ladder for 18 years.

I think this is the sentiment the pp was trying to get across. But the use of the actual word 'smug' derailed the point. I think she was putting across the point she was judged as a sahm, but that the gap which supposedly was terrible for her employability...actually helped her...it gave her the time to retrain.

@choli

Nothing. But looking down at other working people from the dizzy heights of a web developer is pretty laughable.

She was 'looking down' at those who previously judged her, not all working people.

Your contributions to this thread have just been nasty. If you don't agree with what the pp said that's absolutely fine...but your response is unpleasant and belittles pp achievements.

The response of @FloconDeNeige is a good example of how you can disagree with someone's comments and remain pleasant

@sweak yes exactly I think for some the opportunity to stay at home can open opportunities. If you are In a corporate job and climbing a specific ladder then yes you will probably lose out on progression and may not be able to return to it at the same level but sometimes people are relieved to step away from that type of career.
I know people who have retrained as Nutritonal therapists, web developers, yoga teacher, HR career (starting from the bottom but was excited about a new role) so it's not always doom and gloom.
I appreciate there was a pp who really struggled to find work and I can imagine that must be very hard and I realise there are two sides to this, it
also depends if you have the money to retrain of course and a supportive partner, but it isn't always doom and gloom.

Totally agree Drunken. Not all women are in careers where you’re on a specific ladder and if you step off, even for a short while, that’s it. Even for those who are, they might have been in that mindset during their 20s and then, at some point, they question “is this it?” They might decide they want more flexibility in life or a different balance and when children come along, it’s an obvious point to have this kind of reassessment about what you might actually want out of life.

@Drunkenmonkey IMO the posts about gap in employability come out when we have thread after thread of people going ‘I’m a SAHM and can’t find a part time job to work around the children’ or ‘why is it so hard to step back into my old career as a SAHM?’
No situation is doom and gloom but it depends on what people want. The posts on here are whiny so they get whiny replies.
Also as repeated unless under very specific circumstances being a SAHM is a privilege. Not an unrelenting slog (unless you were forced by other circumstances). Hence why people don’t take kindly to privileged people whinging.
The web developer just proves the point. She got to retrain while cushily being at home. Other people balance work, kids and additional training.

@paloma10

If AIBU is anything to go by, the most financially abused women tend not to be SAHMs, but those who are in work (on a lower salary than the DH), but have totally separate finances. I can’t believe how many women seem to be in this position and tell themselves it’s “independence” or whatever. Surely, this is like letting your husband have his cake and eat it? How could you have any respect for such a man?

How many threads are there when the wife is working on a relatively low salary - either because she has had to take (minimum) time out for children; or has to work part time around the children; or maybe she just earns less than her husband anyway. They have separate bank accounts and she has to contribute 50/50 to bills, etc, meaning that she has a pittance to live off while he has much more. Often she has no visibility of his account and no idea how much money he has. She lives like a second class citizen in her own home, like the poor flat mate, essentially.

Why do women let men get away with this? There are husbands who seem to get married seeing no requirement of themselves whatsoever to even financially support their wives through basic maternity leave - letting them just live off the basic pay and then back to work the very day it runs out. It’s as if there no compunction on them to inconvenience themselves at all. Why are we bringing men up with this kind of attitude?

If you get married, you are a unit. If you can share your DNA to bring children into this world then you can share your bank accounts fgs! I can’t understand how any woman would have children with a man who sees fit to treat her like this, but if MN is anything to go by, this set up is common in 2021.

To be honest, I think people only post in AIBU when there’s a problem, so it’s a skewed view. But one thing I would say for the SAH model is that it does tend to be underpinned by the understanding that everything a family has is shared and there’s no “his” and “hers” money, regardless of who earns what. In this sense at least, it’s impossible to have the abusive model that can potentially arise from separate finances (where invariably the woman in the lower earner).

Tbh I have seen more threads in Relationships recently with SAHM who have no access to any type of shared bank account plus no income , who are given around £500/600per month for groceries, all things child related petrol etc
They usually have one pair of trousers, few pairs of underwear and the DH is swanning around with the rest of an 80K ish salary.

Of course thats not to say its all SAHM but having your own salary is always going to help you to leave if needed.

The posts on here are whiny so they get whiny replies.
Also as repeated unless under very specific circumstances being a SAHM is a privilege. Not an unrelenting slog (unless you were forced by other circumstances). Hence why people don’t take kindly to privileged people whinging.

That theory could be applied to the majority of threads on Mumsnet!
Try posting as a SAHM saying you're lucky or privileged then almost guaranteed the reply will be from a working parent saying something like "I wouldn't say being financially dependent on a man is a privilege"
The majority of advice and criticism given out by working parents is coming from those with the privilege of degree education, a career and a supportive husband.

The web developer just proves the point. She got to retrain while cushily being at home. Other people balance work, kids and additional training.

I don't think her retraining whilst "cushily" being at home is relevant in the context of the conversation. The point being made is the gap have her, conversely, an advantage as she had time to retrain. Of course that's easier than retraining whilst still working. The point is her employment gap, in this situation, didn't harm her future employment prospects as MN likes to emphasise it will

As for the slog comment I suppose some like to complain, but people who are employed have a grumble about their jobs out of the home too and that's allowed. Highly paid people with luxuries could be called privileged too.

“having your own salary is always going to help you to leave if needed.”

All things bring equal, yes. But things are far from equal between families. So, for instance, Woman A might have job yes, but her husband refused to put her on the deeds of the house; or she might have massive debts. Her neighbour, Woman B, has no job, but their mortgage was paid off so she receives half of those assists, plus half of their mutual savings and her husband is more decent all round because he was never one of the “my money, your money” types. Just the most basic example, but I’m just stating the obvious that you have to look at the wider picture when considering SAHM financial vulnerability. It’s not all about income - going from a two income set-up to a one will nearly always be a challenge for most women. It’s about shared assets.

I would never recommend any woman being a SAHM where her husband gives her some kind of allowance from his salary and keeps the rest for himself! Are you joking? I wouldn’t have children with that type of man full stop, let alone be a SAHM for him.

I've been on this site for about 18 years. I never felt I really fitted into either side of the debate, as I was a college teacher, so worked very few part time hours, could change my hours every year, so my children never needed childcare. My children are older teens now, and I still work part time hours so I can do the school pick up most days and of course I'm at home in the hols. Working my hours around the kids meant the most my children have had is 1 hour of childcare a week. So I'm fairly in the middle.

But over the years, I have seen the vitriol on both sides. SAHM accuse WOHM parents of poor parenting, saying things like "why have children if you're not going to raise them", of emotionally abusing their children by sending them to nursery, of not being there fir their children, being selfish by working and not putting their children first etc etc...

Then there have been the implicit digs, like SAHM are "full time mums" (although their husbands are never "part time dads") because even when their children are at school, they're emotionally available for them the whole time.

And the WOHM have done the same to SAHM, accusing them of being lazy, of not being a good role model to their children etc... of being financially irresponsible etc.

And they too have have the implicit digs, I couldn't be a SAHM because I'd be bored etc...

But I'd also say do recognise OP, that returning to work after being a SAHM is easier for you as a teacher than many other professions. You're likely to be older, more experienced yet still cheaper, because you're unlikely to be on USP 3 - that's the dream for heads and employers! You also have the benefits of a job that has very child friendly hours (I know teachers don't leave at 3, but a lot of work you can take home with you) and the holidays are sorted. This isn't the case for women in a lot of other careers. FWIW, I saw that my friends who were in professions, found it relatively easy to return after having children. But those who had worked their way up, who had gained qualifications through work (eg working in insurance etc), found it impossible to return and many ended up in shop work or other low paid but flexible jobs.

And finally, the finance thing is a real concern. Many think they're financially sorted... but spend a few years on the relationships board, or do some trowelling, SAHM being left high and dry or finding it difficult to leave seems almost as predictable as the "script" (affairs).

So no OP, I don't think MN is against SAHM. I think if you think that, then perhaps you have confirmation bias because you're not seeing the bun fights that have been on here as old as time, mud has been slung viciously from both sides, for the past 18 years at least!!

@paloma10

“having your own salary is always going to help you to leave if needed.”

All things bring equal, yes. But things are far from equal between families. So, for instance, Woman A might have job yes, but her husband refused to put her on the deeds of the house; or she might have massive debts. Her neighbour, Woman B, has no job, but their mortgage was paid off so she receives half of those assists, plus half of their mutual savings and her husband is more decent all round because he was never one of the “my money, your money” types. Just the most basic example, but I’m just stating the obvious that you have to look at the wider picture when considering SAHM financial vulnerability. It’s not all about income - going from a two income set-up to a one will nearly always be a challenge for most women. It’s about shared assets.

I would never recommend any woman being a SAHM where her husband gives her some kind of allowance from his salary and keeps the rest for himself! Are you joking? I wouldn’t have children with that type of man full stop, let alone be a SAHM for him.

Im not joking,no Where did I recommend that you or anyone does this ? Your main problem @paloma10 Why on earth would I recommend that situation to anyone Women find themselves in these situations gradually. The boiling frog is the term used. Having an income to flee is what Im talking about here , not divorcing a fairly reasonable chap !

Your main problem@paloma10 is that you turn everything round to you.
Im not talking about you clearly

Frankly the best advice for anyone WOHM or SAHM is don’t have children with an arsehole. Any hints he may turn into one start protecting yourself however seems best.

@LittleBearPad

Frankly the best advice for anyone WOHM or SAHM is don’t have children with an arsehole. Any hints he may turn into one start protecting yourself however seems best.

If only it were that easy. Many abusive men dont show their true colours until the woman is pregnant and the man thinks " gotcha"