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?!

[quote Opalfeet]@LittlePearl I've had lots of comments about how nursery will aid my little ones development (from one onwards). I don't know whether this is said in seriousness or because people are a bit defensive because they've had to send their own from an early age. Each to their own, but please don't try to talk me that I need to send mine to nursery for development and I won't tell you that you need to keep yours at home. 🤷‍♀️
At 3 years my little one was more than ready for nursery and he's getting enough social development ready for school.[/quote]
It's a shame that there's so much judgement on parents for the decisions they make.

Some parents will choose paid childcare others will choose to stay at home. There will be a myriad of reasons behind those decisions and no one 'right' way. Human lives are complex.

But at the end of the day ALL childcare is WORK. Whether money is exchanged or not shouldn't dictate the value people put on it.

I don't have an issue at all with SAHM even though this a choice I would never have made for myself or would want for my daugther.

What I have an issue with is SAHM who play the martyrs, who pretend they sacrificed their career for the sole purpose of allowing their husband to have their career, who claim that without them at home, their husband could never earn what they do, and who slave away all day long just to make the family happy.

I just don't believe it. I believe that the vast majority of SAHM are so because they want to be. Yes it might work out best for the family and that's great, but I think women who spent years to build up their career and care to continue on that path always manage to find ways to do so.

@Viviennemary

I agree that it's also a role model issue. I didn't want my DD growing up thinking it was the man's job to earn the money and the woman's to look after the home.

You can talk to children, you know. Explain that people's circumstances are different

> If you look after someone else's children (as in you're a childminder or nursery worker) that's GOOD because it's your job and you're being paid for what you do.

> But if those same children are looked after by their own mother / father that's BAD because the parent should be out earning.

I agree with this to a degree but women are always judged way more harshly than men in either case.

Man goes back to work weeks after a baby is born - no one bats an eyelid.
Woman goes back to work weeks after baby is born - shes vilified for damaging the child for putting them childcare and "letting someone else raise her child"

Man stays at home with baby or toddler - hes a hero/breaking down stereotypes etc
Woman stays at home with baby or toddler - shes dependent on a man/scrounging/wasting her education/a poor example to her children etc etc

Man stays at home with baby or toddler - hes a hero/breaking down stereotypes etc. Woman stays at home with baby or toddler - shes dependent on a man/scrounging/wasting her education/a poor example to her children etc etc

Nah, he’s roundly called a cock lodger and a bastard for making his wife work.

@Fizbosshoes

> If you look after someone else's children (as in you're a childminder or nursery worker) that's GOOD because it's your job and you're being paid for what you do.

> But if those same children are looked after by their own mother / father that's BAD because the parent should be out earning.

I agree with this to a degree but women are always judged way more harshly than men in either case.

Man goes back to work weeks after a baby is born - no one bats an eyelid.
Woman goes back to work weeks after baby is born - shes vilified for damaging the child for putting them childcare and "letting someone else raise her child"

Man stays at home with baby or toddler - hes a hero/breaking down stereotypes etc
Woman stays at home with baby or toddler - shes dependent on a man/scrounging/wasting her education/a poor example to her children etc etc

This is so true

I'm a sahm, I was told on here once that it was so sad for my children to witness and I was setting a terrible example. It upset me a lot. I've given up a lot to stay at home and do what I thought was best, plus my DC had sn which means childcare was not suitable and I had no family to help.

Full time childcare costs £800 a month?

HAHAHaHaHa

No

@Bluntness100

Man stays at home with baby or toddler - hes a hero/breaking down stereotypes etc. Woman stays at home with baby or toddler - shes dependent on a man/scrounging/wasting her education/a poor example to her children etc etc

Nah, he’s roundly called a cock lodger and a bastard for making his wife work.

The only time I've seen that phrase used is when the man isn't doing any childcare and not working. The example given clearly stated childcare for a baby or toddler

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

Not always. My father's old friend was a stay at home dad and his wife earned good wage (she was high up in a company).

My husband and I are in the situation where he works full time and i work very part time. So more or less, traditional SAHM. We would very gladly switch but circumstances haven't allowed it.

@mintbiscuit

* 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.

This is how I feel. I would never judge a SAHP (regardless of gender) but it does make me worry that if the relationship goes sour, one person could have difficulties supporting themselves if they've had a significant career gap and now find it hard to get employment (more likely in some industries than others). Or they end up with a big shortfall in their pension.

The only time I've seen that phrase used is when the man isn't doing any childcare and not working. The example given clearly stated childcare for a baby or toddler

Hang around a bit

My husband doesn’t work, he refuses to get a job, I’m exhausted I have to work full time to pay the bills, we have two children, and I feel like I get no time with them, what will I do”

He’s a cocklodger, ltb.

I agree with @vivainsomnia

I believe that the vast majority of SAHM are so because they want to be

I'm not a SAHM and have no issue with those who choose that option. But I do find the bleating on about "sacrifice" really irritating. Its not sacrifice; it's a lifestyle choice.

Likewise the "my husband wouldn't have been able to have his successful career without me at home supporting him". I'm the main breadwinner in our house (we have two children) and my success isn't down to my husband's support - he works full time himself!

Wanting to be a SAHM is a valid choice. Own it!

@sauceyorange
I’ve just worked out that ours would be closer to £3k full time 😳

@Bluntness100

Man stays at home with baby or toddler - hes a hero/breaking down stereotypes etc. Woman stays at home with baby or toddler - shes dependent on a man/scrounging/wasting her education/a poor example to her children etc etc

Nah, he’s roundly called a cock lodger and a bastard for making his wife work.

That was my mum's view on our situation! So irritating

@Bluntness100 I agree, I've had friends pass comments that if I pay the bills he should do everything

Man goes back to work weeks after a baby is born - no one bats an eyelid.
Woman goes back to work weeks after baby is born - shes vilified for damaging the child for putting them childcare and "letting someone else raise her child”

You’ve hit the nail on the head.
My DP went back to work 6 weeks after, awful shifts where we wouldn’t see him awake for 4 days and my dad said ‘oh it’s hard having to work after a bad nights sleep isn’t it, you’ll get through it butty’. Roll on 11 months and I go back, decide 4 days is right for us and he has an asolute rage on ‘you can’t work full days like that, if you think it’s ok to give your baby to a stranger we need a chat’.

😬 the same guy that wouldn’t buy me a kitchen set when I was growing up because ‘he didn’t want me to think a woman’s place was in the kitchen’. It’s like as soon as a woman has a baby she is no longer a person in her own right just a vessel.

@sauceyorange

Full time childcare costs £800 a month?

HAHAHaHaHa

No

Exactly what I thought! I was paying almost £100 per day.

If you believe what you read on MN, there are so many married women who have totally separate finances to their own husband. They have somehow convinced themselves this is the height of “independence.” No wonder they can’t grasp the dynamic in a SAHP family.

As to the “poor role model” insult that is inevitably thrown at SAHMs - well, what is a good “model” for children? Parents who essentially live like flatmates with their separate finances - one often with greater disposable income than the other; or perhaps they don’t even know what the other earns? Is that a good model?

What about a mum who is perpetually rushed off her feet - doing nursery drop-offs at 7.30 and rushing for pick-ups. Then coming home knackered and resentful and “doing it all.” Is that a better model?

Or both parents with full-on careers and a live-in nanny who is the one there when they get home from school, etc etc. Is that the model we should all be aiming for?

To my mind, all families are different and it’s obvious that the best “model” we can give our children is the one that makes us happiest. If, in some cases, this is the SAH model, so be it. If a SAHM is happy and owns her lifestyle choice, children will pick up on this and it’s a positive model. Similarly, of a mum is genuinely happier working, full or part-time, then this is a positive model.

By the way, being a SAHM is by not means concomitant with domestic drudge . If a family can afford to have a SAHM (medium to long term), they do tend to be the demographic that have cleaners!

Why are SAHM s singled out as being "lazy" I wonder. 24/7 looking after small children is demanding both physically and mentally .Often finding jobs and paying for CC ,will rule some women out of the workplace , at least when they need to be in CC FT. If women can find decent jobs and CC thats great .However many women wish to have PT hours or less than a FT working week .Also the many times DC are ill and so on .One thing I have noticed is that with a first child, many women will re enter the workplace ,and not have too many issues .However 2nd /3rd DC poses a whole new set of problems , and many women will opt for becoming a SAHM at least for a while .

@honeylulu I have not witnessed this bleating you talk about- it's all a choice

@crinklyfoil

I’m not new but I have noticed it a lot lately. I do think in general the site seems more hostile lately, perhaps that’s just my perception though.

When deciding the mood of MN you’ve got to factor in your own attention bias haven’t you? It’s impossible to measure opinion on MN by the threads you notice and choose to read. The tone of threads can be entirely dictated by an OP’s tone, language, grammar etc and pull out vastly different responses as a reaction to the OP rather than as a reaction to the subject matter. There is probably a different MN tone depending on the timing of the post too. So I don’t think you can state that “MN is so unpleasant to SAHM” without accepting that it is entirely your perception based on the tuning of your own radar.

[quote Liverbird77]@LittleBearPad I understand that young children need more hands on, practical care. My point is that it doesn't matter if someone chooses to continue to stay at home as their children get older. There seems to be an attitude from some posters that the stay at home parent has no business being "lazy". My point is that if you don't have to work your fingers to the bone and be exhausted and miserable then why should you?

If they want to spend their days reading, at the gym, gardening, watching TV, at the hairdresser, doing a course etc etc, what does it matter?
If their family unit works for them and everyone is happy then so what?? It certainly isn't "leeching" as a pp said because a family is a unit and all money/assets are shared.

If one or both of the partnership was unhappy then obviously it wouldn't be fair.[/quote]
Oh I agree that if it works for everyone then that’s all good.

I just think age of child is relevant. And I confess I’m definitely sceptical of women who describe themselves as SAHMs when their children are in their 20s. (And it does occasionally happen).