To wonder why MN is so unpleasant about SAHMs?

[crinklyfoil]

While I know there are cases when women aren’t married and don’t own property and are in a vulnerable position, I’m not talking about posters who are concerned about women.

I’m talking about posters who believe that SAHMs have no say in finances, should ‘get a job’ and are somehow lazy.

A FT childcare place costs around £800 a month. If you have more than one child, realistically for many women, ‘getting a job’ will mean working at a loss. Not to mention problems with shift work at the lower paid end of the spectrum (retail work and care work.)

Is it really so awful that having a SAHM might just work really well for some families? That some women might thoroughly enjoy it and that it’s part of a mutually beneficial relationship in the context of the whole family?

Or should everyone just get a job, regardless of how miserable and poor it makes the whole family?!

Oh for goodness sake.

Why is mumsent so horrible to sahms
Why is mumsnet to horrible to woh mums

There is no hive mind, it’s sixteen million individuals

YABU.

Mumsnet is not a single collective opinion.

The reactions I see to SAHMs vary depending on the thread in question.

Where are these threads that say this? I haven't seen them.

No issue with whether a woman works or doesn’t but two things that piss me off:

1- “my partner works because he earns more”....always men who earn more

2- childcare will take all my wage- nope it’s a joint expense

Just say, I want to be a SAHM, that’s the truth and that’s ok.

I don't think it's necessarily SAHMs, I think some people just LOVE to sit behind a keyboard and write inflammatory vicious shit that will cause pain and upset. It's embarrassing and sad.

I've never seen sahm criticised on mumsnet. Only concern that they are married and have their pensions sorted.

I might be biased as a WOHM - we all see what we're looking for to an extent - but I swear I see more threads about 'why does MN hate SAHMs?' than I see offensive comments about SAHMs. Which isn't to say I've never seen any nasty comments about SAHMs - but then I've seen awful ones about WOHMs, too.

I haven’t seen this on MN at all. I think each family makes their own decisions about finance, childcare etc and that’s fine. I wouldn’t want to be a SAHM personally but that’s my choice.

YABU. There are so many threads ‘will people judge me for being a SAHP’ ‘should I be a SAHM’ with very little judgement and a lot of practical advice/people sharing experience.

I think a lot of SAHM worry they will be judged so project this onto others when people really really really couldn’t care less!

I have no problem with SAHMs. I have the greatest respect for them. But I object to quite a lot of your post. Why should women pay for all of the childcare? Why do you think women are (or should?) default to lower paid options? What about career progression (which for me is one of the main reasons not to be a SAHM)?

Some women on Mumsnet like to give other women a kicking. Deeply unpleasant especially when they do so with faux concern. "What will you do when he leaves you?" Or disdain "I'd be bored out of my brain" because I'm so much smarter.

Childcare costs are joint and known before having children so not an excuse to not work.

Education teaches children to aim high and study hard in order to prepare for adulthood, supporting yourself and giving back through taxes.

I don’t subscribe to the old fashioned view that men work and pay for everything and women opt out of all work and financial responsibilities. It’s perfectly possible to work, run a home and parent, millions do it.

I can’t imagine not working and needing someone else to pay for absolutely everything I need. Nor expecting my partner to pay for his own gifts and bear the responsibility for it all alone. I’d not be impressed if he thought it was perfectly ok to opt out of working and leave his costs to me so wouldn’t expect the same in return,

It's not SAHMs persay, more that some women are perpetuating the belief that they should stay at home because childcare is more than their wages.

I think women should aim to earn as much as or more than their partners and not be reliant on a man. (Or woman, whatever)

Also that we should also treat childcare as a joint responsibility and cost. Women staying at home is perpetuating the opposite.

Nothing changes if nothing changes. If it works for you, then it's your decision, but I personally get annoyed if women stay at home because a.they don't earn enough before having children to make returning to work financially viable and b. Because they are reliant on their husbands financially. Given that 50% of marriages end in divorce I think women should stop being so short sighted and then end up in the shit financially if it does go tits up.

childcare will take all my wage- nope it’s a joint expense

I do get this one though.

Let’s say you have two working parents. Dad earns £2500 after tax etc and mum earns £1100. Childcare for two children is £1500.

So yes if mum pays for half the childcare she’s still making £750 ‘profit’ but a relationship shouldn’t really work like that. It still means that the family unit operates at a loss.

per se

Thing is, I think “childcare will take all my wage” is a clumsy phrase. I suspect most women who write that mean that the cost of childcare equals or exceeds their earnings and therefore there would be no overall increase to the family income if they worked. Now, obviously for some people they are happy to work anyway for other reasons like career progression, pension and childcare being a relatively short term cost. But I can definitely understand that other women might feel differently and prefer to stay at home if they’re not making a net profit from working.

@crinklyfoil

childcare will take all my wage- nope it’s a joint expense

I do get this one though.

Let’s say you have two working parents. Dad earns £2500 after tax etc and mum earns £1100. Childcare for two children is £1500.

So yes if mum pays for half the childcare she’s still making £750 ‘profit’ but a relationship shouldn’t really work like that. It still means that the family unit operates at a loss.

But there are advantages to working which are not just your salary - there might be additional benefits (eg private medical insurance at a vastly reduced rate), pension contributions plus the longer term benefits of career progression especially once childcare expenses drop.

I haven't picked up antipathy to SAHMs here but there are some nasty pieces of work on MN who seem to delight in being cruel to other women, sometimes cloaked in fake concern. I feel annoyed if SAHMs talk about childcare costs as if they are theirs alone rather than joint, and I do worry for unmarried SAHMs. SAMH or WOTH Mums, we all have to find our own way.

• No issue with whether a woman works or doesn’t but two things that piss me off:

1- “my partner works because he earns more”....always men who earn more hmm

2- childcare will take all my wage- nope it’s a joint expense

Just say, I want to be a SAHM, that’s the truth and that’s ok.*

This.

Personally, I think taking significant time away from work puts women in a financially vulnerable situation despite being married. I’ve lost count the number of threads I’ve read where marriages fail and the woman is screwed financially. The thought of having to be financially dependent on a man I’m no longer married to feels me with dread. As I say though, that’s how I view my own personal situation.

“my partner works because he earns more”....always men who earn more"

Well yes, structural sexism means that that is the case in the majority of situations. I started off earning the same as my dh. Three maternity leaves and the fact he is in science and I am not, and our earning powers have diverged tenfold. Yes, i could have made different choices. But I don't live in a vacuum. There's a reason why more or less 100% of my female peers are the ones who have taken a step back career-wise, and it isn't that we are lazy or unambitious or poorly educated.

Thinking about this. I wonder whether rates of divorce are higher in single income families. If my partner suddenly decided to give up his job and rely on me, so we could avoid paying childcare I would definitely not appreciate the financial burden. It would create resentment for sure.

I don't think mn is anti-SAHM, but threads tend to go the same way. There will be lots of thoughtful and balanced posts, but someone will either say "I didn't have DCs for someone else will raise them" or "Ugh, my brain would rot as an SAHM" and then the same old row kicks off amongst a few individuals while most posters say moderate things and are ignored.

Threads do get more critical where it's clear that the OP's partner isn't on board. It doesn't seem fair for one person to unilaterally decide that the other will henceforth be the sole breadwinner.

I agree with pp that I haven't seen loads of hate towards SAHMs. I more often see supportive threads for people who say they're going to be a SAHM then posts spouting hate towards them.

I only worked very part time and had no real career after having dc.
I'm lucky because my dh and I are happily retired together and share finances.
However my work pension is £165.00 per month.
So being a sahm cost me very dear.
It's not just about wages it's about pension and it comes round a lot faster than you think.

YANBU. It’s jealousy.

They’ll say it’s because of career or regaining independence or whatever but when they’re judgemental and nasty about it that’s just a convenient excuse because they wish they were able to be at home raising their own child too.