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?

Yes - at which point you start figuring out how you’re going to be a single parent if you need to be.

@LittleBearPad exactly!
Also however 'nice' anyone is the tide could turn at any time.
Protect yourself, however you choose to do it.
We're going around in circles but in truth most of it is a husband problem

@LittleBearPad

Yes - at which point you start figuring out how you’re going to be a single parent if you need to be.

Have you ever been in abusive relationship? It really isnt that easy. It takes a long time for some women to even know that its abusive. They often come from backgrounds of childhood trauma/ abusive relationships modelled as a child. Its the norm for them, they are conditioned to accept abuse. You are skirting around victim blaming here. Total ignorance so Im out.

I not talking about myself at all . I gave two abstract examples.

My point is, if you are with a man who is a higher earner and, regardless of whether your working or not, expects you to live as a second class citizen in your own home, then you have far more intrinsic problems than anything covered in this SAHM debate.

@paloma10

I not talking about myself at all . I gave two abstract examples.

My point is, if you are with a man who is a higher earner and, regardless of whether your working or not, expects you to live as a second class citizen in your own home, then you have far more intrinsic problems than anything covered in this SAHM debate.

This is absolutely true

It’s not victim blaming don’t be absurd.

Sorry hit send... to say that if you’re pregnant and you think your previously decent partner is starting to behave abusively / badly whatever then think about what you’re going to do.

As a sahm, I absolutely agree with every person that comments that you should have some ability to financially protect yourself in case things go tits up in your relationship. My DH pays for everything, I have no income of my own. If I hadn't prepared for this when we started talking about having a child, if I hadn't started saving money, were we to break up tomorrow, I'd be financially screwed. I'd have nothing. As it is, I saved. I saved hard to ensure that if things go badly we can separate and I can still support myself and DD for a lengthy period of time whilst I find a job. It isn't nasty to educate people on that fact.
I actually find that people on MN are more critical of full time working parents, and they get judged for paying somebody else to raise their child. It's usually the sahm that are judgy, not the working ones.

@LittleBearPad

Sorry hit send... to say that if you’re pregnant and you think your previously decent partner is starting to behave abusively / badly whatever then think about what you’re going to do.

It's really not that simple @LittleBearPad

As others have said, a lot of men only show their abusive colours when a woman is pregnant or has a baby. There isn't a checklist of abuse red flags which you can use like getting a survey on a house. A lot of men are extremely good and disguising this until the woman is trapped.

Also a man doesn't have to be abusive to be unsupportive of a woman's right to financial autonomy. There are plenty of men who fall well short of being abusive but who just have old-fashioned ideas about male and female roles, or who want to prioritise their careers over those of their partner and don't want to compromise. Or who are just lazy and will have to be endlessly prodded to do their fair share domestically.

IMHO its almost always better to raise children on your own than with any of these sorts of men because your ambitions and your needs will always end up taking a back seat to theirs and you will suffer financially unless you accept all of his terms.

A SAHM who is with a genuinely decent, progressive man who shares money, helps on the childcare and domestic front, pays into a pension for her etc is in a great position. But I would say conservatively speaking this is not the majority of men with a SAHM.

In fact I'd stick my neck out and say that in the majority of cases a man who prefers to have his wife or partner at home with the children all the time is not likely to be an especially supportive or progressive partner.

@mumIme

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!!

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.

How many times I do need to recognise the same point on this thread? I've acknowledged so many times. My point is its not doom and gloom to have 5 years or so out like it is implied on this site constantly.

@thepeopleversuswork

SAHM who is with a genuinely decent, progressive man who shares money, helps on the childcare and domestic front, pays into a pension for her etc is in a great position. But I would say conservatively speaking this is not the majority of men with a SAHM.

You have no evidence for that statement. You got very annoyed with people saying it's better for kids not to go into childcare as there is no evidence for this. You are making another sweeping statement with no evidence yourself. I don't think there have been any studies into this. You are probably using what you have seen on MN? But those who have a genuinely decent progressive partner aren't really posting about their relationship problems in regards to being a sahm

It was the simple in the straw man I was responding to.

SAHM who is with a genuinely decent, progressive man who shares money, helps on the childcare and domestic front, pays into a pension for her etc is in a great position.

Yes they are. You have no evidence for asserting how true this is for any SAHM’s.

Similarly WOHMs who have the same -perhaps apart from the pension aspect as they should be able to do this themselves - are also in a good position.

Which brings us back to don’t have children with an arsehole.

“In fact I'd stick my neck out and say that in the majority of cases a man who prefers to have his wife or partner at home with the children all the time is not likely to be an especially supportive or progressive partner.”

That’s quite a brush-stroke assertion .

There are so many types of relationship and wanting to financially support your wife to be at home does not make a man less “progressive” necessarily. It depends how you relate to each other within a relationship.

[quote Sweak]@thepeopleversuswork

SAHM who is with a genuinely decent, progressive man who shares money, helps on the childcare and domestic front, pays into a pension for her etc is in a great position. But I would say conservatively speaking this is not the majority of men with a SAHM.

You have no evidence for that statement. You got very annoyed with people saying it's better for kids not to go into childcare as there is no evidence for this. You are making another sweeping statement with no evidence yourself. I don't think there have been any studies into this. You are probably using what you have seen on MN? But those who have a genuinely decent progressive partner aren't really posting about their relationship problems in regards to being a sahm[/quote]
That's a fair cop. I can't know what % of men with a SAHM wife are supportive vs unsupportive obviously.

But I do wonder, in 2021, what kind of man (or woman, for that matter) would actively want their partner to be totally financially dependent on them and would want their financial autonomy to be curtailed in this way. And would want for them to be responsible for all domestic activity and childcare. Just from a very selfish perspective alone, anyone in this scenario is very likely to lose the right to be the primary carer of their kids in the event of a divorce.

Of course there are scenarios where people are forced into these roles for pragmatic reasons for a period of time. But I'm talking about these situations where people have a philosophy which states that one person is the breadwinner and the other is the carer.

To want that you'd likely either have to have a very conservative worldview or have some deep-seated belief that children should only be with a parent as carer. Or be very ambitious and see a partner as a way to relieve you of any of the responsibilities that hold back other ambitious people. Or a combination of the above.

I struggle to see any other reasons why someone would want this set up. And at a personal level I'd be uncomfortable raising children with someone who had this worldview.

I have voted YABU as encouraging someone to protect themselves financially is not being critical of their choice to be a SAHM.

My husband is the kind of man, as you put it, that is happy for me to work or not work and but agrees that he does prefer the set up we have at the moment, which is great because I do too. His salary is paid into our joint account, and then equal amounts go into each of our personal accounts after bills are covered and joint savings have been paid into.

Perhaps you think he should feel uneasy that I'm in a vulnerable position but the fact is he doesn't really think I am and rightly or wrongly thinks I shouldn't have too much trouble getting back into the workforce gradually. I will say that in the event of a split he probably wouldn't want to be the primary carer and I'm sure that opens a whole can of worms of it's own but regardless I'm comfortable with both the man I decided to have children with and what we have in place for those children.

@thepeopleversuswork I hear your point. However just to be clear not all men with sahm partners are desperate for them to stay at home and do all the childcare etc.

Just to give you from my experience my husband was totally supportive about my return to work and literally said it's up to me. So I could have stayed at home well into the children being at school or return to work. Not everyone is black and white in their views. Having a sahp in your household doesn't mean it's a deeply conservative household

He's not perfect by the way, who is! But I don't have a problem with his world view which is that different things work for different families

But I do wonder, in 2021, what kind of man (or woman, for that matter) would actively want their partner to be totally financially dependent on them and would want their financial autonomy to be curtailed in this way. And would want for them to be responsible for all domestic activity and childcare. Just from a very selfish perspective alone, anyone in this scenario is very likely to lose the right to be the primary carer of their kids in the event of a divorce.

Totally agree with this
No way would I be with this type of man but also many WOHM have men like this.
Lazy arseholes who expect them to do everything child related and in the home.
I hate housework and really couldnt see myself in the sort of relationship where SAH is seen as a priviledge yeah right when in fact you are just a domestic appliance.
Look at all the Step mum threads.
5 minutes after their divorce they move in another woman to do their domestic work.
No thanks

[quote Sweak]@thepeopleversuswork I hear your point. However just to be clear not all men with sahm partners are desperate for them to stay at home and do all the childcare etc.

Just to give you from my experience my husband was totally supportive about my return to work and literally said it's up to me. So I could have stayed at home well into the children being at school or return to work. Not everyone is black and white in their views. Having a sahp in your household doesn't mean it's a deeply conservative household[/quote]
I understand that there are all sorts of shades of grey here and loads of people end up making compromises that suit their family's needs best at a particular point in time.

I suppose I was trying to draw a distinction between families where one parent stays at home as a pragmatic solution for a period of time and families where there is a philosophical distinction made between "breadwinner" and "home-maker" as a moral choice.

Millions of people no doubt fall into the first category and all power to them. But in the scenario where there is a "career SAHM" based on a conscious choice by the family, I slightly wonder who benefits from this. Is it the children or is it actually the man?

And when people in the latter category say things like "what's the point having children if you want to 'farm them out' to others?" and in the same breath say they are being picked on by WOHMs I feel a bit .

But I would be the first to admit I am not without emotional investment in this topic.

hate housework and really couldnt see myself in the sort of relationship where SAH is seen as a priviledge yeah right when in fact you are just a domestic appliance.

Perfect example of the sort of attitudes sahp face on MN. I'm just a domestic appliance. Thanks for that.

@Sweak

hate housework and really couldnt see myself in the sort of relationship where SAH is seen as a priviledge yeah right when in fact you are just a domestic appliance.

Perfect example of the sort of attitudes sahp face on MN. I'm just a domestic appliance. Thanks for that.

Im talking about the threads on here where women are used and abused by men. Jesus christ -so chippy! its not always about YOU Can we put that at the top of these threads

@thepeopleversuswork

And when people in the latter category say things like "what's the point having children if you want to 'farm them out' to others?" and in the same breath say they are being picked on by WOHMs I feel a bit hmm.

I feel we've really established on this thread people shouldn't be saying judgemental things like that. It cuts both ways for sure

@Templetreebreeze it wasn't clear to me you weren't generalising about all sahms