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?!

@HoppingPavlova

I don’t think there is any problem with SAHP. Personally, I think the issue is where the SAHP comes on here, moans that their working partner comes home and doesn’t immediately take over with all child related duties ‘to give them a break’ and everyone piles on to the working partner because ‘they have had it easy all day’, ‘your ‘job’ is so much harder than theirs’ etc. Never heard such a load of rot and that’s from someone who worked way over full time hours AND was a SAHP for several years when kids were small. Both myself and DH worked full time and between us also managed the kids full time, managed by working double shifts opposite days, doing night shifts and walking in the door and tagging the person leaving for day shift etc. We had no family nearby, no one to help with the kids, got no outside help, was all us. Only exception was a period where we got allocated a 1:1 worker for a baby with intensive medical needs (was seemingly cheaper than them taking up a hosp bed), but that worker was only allowed to be with and care for that particular baby, none of the other kids and was 6hrs/day 5 days for roughly 12mths. No way, no how was looking after babies/small kids/primary age anywhere near as hard as going to work. That’s laughable, and we had 2 x significant SN where both needed a hell of a lot more work/attention than the average child. Looking after kids, cleaning the house, getting shopping is not ‘work’ either, it’s not a job, it’s just parenting/necessary living skills. I’m all for SAHP if that’s how people want to run it for their family, who gives a hoot, just don’t make out it’s a job, let alone a hard job.

Well to counter that, I worked full time out of the home for 2 years while my husband was the SAHP, and 100% it was easier for me being the one who worked out of the home. Over the years, we have both worked full time, both part time, one full time and one part time, and one full time with the other being the SAHP and unfortunately financially for us, the best solution has been to have a FT working parent with a SAHP - neither one of us wanted to be the SAHP so have taken it in turns.

The easiest by far, for me was being the one working out of the home while my husband was the SAHP. The hardest has been being the SAHP while DH works full time.

But I'm well aware that different things are difficult for different people, and I'm not spouting my experiences as universal fact or using them to put other people down.

Looking after kids, cleaning the house, getting shopping is not ‘work’ either

Well that's not true is it? We pay and employ other people to look after our kids, do the cleaning, ironing, gardening, etc etc. Of course it is work.

@OnlyFoolsnMothers 2- childcare will take all my wage- nope it’s a joint expense This is such a stupid thing to say. If the sahm starts working and earns £1500 a month and childcare for two children costs £1500 then it has taken all her wages. Saying it’s taken £750 each is meaningless, as the family income has not improved and it’s actually worse due to costs of working.

@Bluntness100

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.

Well in that case she isn't on board with him being a sahp so he would have to get a job. Just like a sahm whose husband doesn't want to pay all bills alone would have to get a job.

These things have to be a joint decision

The other thread has has to be taken down because there was so much unpleasantness generated by the fact the OP was a SAHM! So many people telling her her husband’s money was “his” and she should get a job if she wanted any say in the family finances. It was a shocking read. The internalised misogyny was in another level!

[quote MyDcAreMarvel]**@OnlyFoolsnMothers* 2- childcare will take all my wage- nope it’s a joint expense* This is such a stupid thing to say. If the sahm starts working and earns £1500 a month and childcare for two children costs £1500 then it has taken all her wages. Saying it’s taken £750 each is meaningless, as the family income has not improved and it’s actually worse due to costs of working.[/quote]
Family income would be the same in both of those scenarios, it depends whether you view childcare as fully a woman's role as to whether the burden of it should be attributed fully to her time or wages.

Some women are vile about SAHMs on here. It's obviously jealousy. Extreme jealousy. Because THEY have to go to out to work because their partner doesn't earn enough, when SAHMs get to stay at home with their children, because they were smart enough to pick a man who is a high earner.

Ha. My husband earns a 6 figure salary. I work for me.

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!
Your situation isn't true for everyone. Not everyone can fit it all in. If they can then great I guess that's the ideal but we don't live in an ideal world.
My husband would not have been able to take his current role without having someone at home for the children. He's said it himself. We put insurance in place to cover it.
He absolutely was able to be successful in his previous role, but that lead to him being offered the promotion and the pay was way better.
I know several couples who both work full time who they wouldn't be able to do the hours their jobs require without the support of their parents or other family members providing childcare. These set up never seems to get the same judgment on MN though.

[quote MyDcAreMarvel]**@OnlyFoolsnMothers* 2- childcare will take all my wage- nope it’s a joint expense* This is such a stupid thing to say. If the sahm starts working and earns £1500 a month and childcare for two children costs £1500 then it has taken all her wages. Saying it’s taken £750 each is meaningless, as the family income has not improved and it’s actually worse due to costs of working.[/quote]
But then you have to see the bigger picture. Even if childcare costs equals the entire wage of the woman, she might earn more in years to come due to the fact that she stayed in the workplace.

Well that's not true is it? We pay and employ other people to look after our kids, do the cleaning, ironing, gardening, etc etc. Of course it is work.

We never employed people to do this, nor did we ever claim that we both worked 2 jobs each. Which is what your saying if you believe your own housework and your own childcare is a job. We worked 1 job each and then came home to run the household which included parenting.

There's a difference between a job and work.

It IS work to clean your house, look after your children, etc. So WOHPs do their job out of the house, then come home to do more work.

SAHPs might find the time during the day to do the housework whilst looking after children, or they might not, in which case they have to do that work later.

A job is paid work. But cleaning etc are still work.

@Cruiser123 which is all well and good if you can afford to make negative money in the time that takes.

*if your household can afford to make negative money - just to be clear

@HoppingPavlova

Well that's not true is it? We pay and employ other people to look after our kids, do the cleaning, ironing, gardening, etc etc. Of course it is work.

We never employed people to do this, nor did we ever claim that we both worked 2 jobs each. Which is what your saying if you believe your own housework and your own childcare is a job. We worked 1 job each and then came home to run the household which included parenting.

Yes, but if you would have to pay someone else to do it surely it's a task worthy of the term 'work'?

You used the word yourself, Hopping - houseWORK.

People should make their own choices. But they should stop seeking validation and approval from others.

But then you have to see the bigger picture. Even if childcare costs equals the entire wage of the woman, she might earn more in years to come due to the fact that she stayed in the workplace.

Whilst this is true it's niave to think for all families this will make a difference to decision making. Food needs putting on the table in the here and now

@Viviennemary

People should make their own choices. But they should stop seeking validation and approval from others.

It's not seeking validation to give some opposition to nasty posters like you who call sahp leeches

@GnomeOrMistAndIceGuy

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.

Agree with this. Yes people are vicious to SAHMs, but you'll also see those same people on threads about obesity and anything else where they can make themselves feel good by being vicious.

I confess I haven't RTFT, but there are so many reasons for deciding to be a SAHM.

For DC 1, I was tied into a contract which allowed me 10 weeks mat leave if I wanted to return to my original role. None of it was paid (hello Channel Islands, back in the day!) and we used up all our savings to pay the bills during that 10 weeks. I was the higher earner as well, so it was a huge hit.

Luckily found reaonsable child care, but going back to work, as a full-time breastfeeding mother, wasn't easy AT ALL. Luckily, DC took expressed milk from a bottle, but God knows what I'd have done if they hadn't. But that's by-the-by.

In terms of finances, things were joint all the way through. And that's the important thing for SAHMs, no matter where they are, or what era they did it in. Without being joint, I'd have been sunk. At no point was I expected to 'fund' all the childcare either. Once I returned to work, it was all pooled.

With DC2, though, I was in a different role, and we made a joint decision that I would be a full-time SAHM until DC2 went to nursery. And when they did, I only went back part-time. By then, DP was in a better-paying job, so we could take the hit, but for quite a while things were tough financially - I was given an amount in cash each week (which I fully agreed with - I knew what our finances were like) and we lived within those means. It wasn't easy. But it was worth it when we looked at the bigger picture.

Now DC are several years older, so it's not so bad. But I have no regrets because I know we were on the same page from the start.

I think MN posters (rightly) have an issue with SAHMs who are forced (even if 'nicely'...) to give up their access to joint money and equal access to decisions to what is done with it. That's where it goes wrong, and where the (for some) prejudice comes from against SAHMs.

It's a mine field, there's no doubt about that.

I’m a sahm and cat say I’ve really had any judgement for it at all.
I don’t work due to anxiety reasons and other factors and am happier at home looking after the house and kids and admin that comes with all that etc

There are some pretty unpleasant and smug posts on this thread. I was a SAHM for 4 years, until DD was well enough to not need 24/7 care.

DH was the higher earner, and I wanted to be DD's main carer, and it worked for us.

DD has grown up knowing that not everyone's circumstances are the same, and I believe I have been a good role model to her because I love my job and have a very strong work ethic. I am 62 and still not ready to retire.

DD has no intention of having children (she really can't stand babies), so the issue of being a SAHM won't arise for her.

"because they were smart enough to pick a man who is a high earner."

Things like this, said like it is some sort of achievement, makes me sad for women in general.

I was raised with the sole aim of 'getting a rich man' .....not to y'know, be rich myself or anything.

As it happens I have always earned more than my DH (he also earns great money just I earn more) I wonder if he goes around saying how lucky he is to be married to someone who earns so mich more than him.

I don’t think people are that bothered in real life what others are doing as long as they aren’t abusing their children. People get defensive though when a sly dig gets thrown in and then it descends.

I WOH FT. There have been occasions when I’ve been a bit jealous of my friend who’s a SAHM but I realised it was because I was pissed off with a specific incident at work and wondered why I’d bothered to try so hard there when I could be having coffee in the morning with friends after drop off like she did.

However, I’d then remember how much I hated being off for a year with my first. I then only took 6 months off with the second. I will never lie or try and justify myself. I did not like being at home with small children. I find them boring, hard work and often unreasonable. There were equal numbers of times they were delightful when tiny but overall I was climbing walls. Also as much as DH wasn’t weird about ‘family’ money’ I always felt weird about not having my own income. I grew up in a WC where women always worked.

We had no family help so DH and I did everything. I’d career changed during mat leave so worked up from the bottom earning less than the childcare. DH and I took our feet on and off the gas to allow the other to chase promotions and now we earn £80k (DH) and £74k (Me) plus benefits Having spare cash also meant we could make some canny investments which meant we’ve paid off our mortgage. We’re not bothered about climbing any higher so the chase is over and we will spend the next 10 years saving for kids housing deposits and uni, gradually reducing to part time until early retirement. We have no interest in being mega wealthy, the plan was always to hit the rat race hard and jump off once we’d achieved our goals.

So from this WOHM you will never hear a negative comment towards SAHM. Even though there were times I was knackered, I would never have made a difference decision. I love my children to death. Prefer their company now they are a bit older. We have great days out and holidays, they go to good schools, nice clubs, they see their parents relaxed as the number 1 stress - money isn’t there. My friend who stayed home’s DH says he will be working into his 70s and they have to watch their pennies. Despite him working many hours, they never go away. I couldn’t handle working so much and never having a lovely holiday. I didn’t want that for DH. Each to their own. I genuinely don’t care if people judge me. I’m sure she wouldn’t care if anyone judged her for her choices.

Live your own life don’t watch what other people are doing. Despite what they say they don’t really care, it’s their own insecurities and issues they’re thinking about.

People judge no matter what you do. Stay at home and those people who think you should work for xyz reasons will judge. Go to work and the people who think you should stay at home for xyz reasons will judge.

When I got pregnant I was earning half what my husband earned so if anybody was going to give up a job it would have been me. I ended up leaving the job anyway because I was only earning a bit over minimum wage, the shifts weren't reliable and would make childcare impossible and expensive.

After my SMP ended I found a part time job round the corner in a pub doing evenings and weekends. I had the baby all day at home whilst my husband was working and then when he got home we would swap and I would go to work.

Several years and another child later I'm still there and still working part time until my youngest is in school and then I'll figure out what to do next.

I think I have a good balance, I get to spend time with the kids but then switch off being on mum mode at work which for me is essential. I'm bringing in money, don't have a gap in my CV and if I were to get divorced I would have some sort of individual income. I don't have a career I want to enhance but if I did I imagine I would have gone with working full time unless it was unaffordable with childcare costs.

It's not something that works for everyone though just like working full time days/being a SAHM wouldn't work for me. Everyone has their own needs and wants and it's whatever is best for them.

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.

At a loss for how long?

One year mat leave. 3 years of paying for a nursery and then you get the free hours at 3. School at 4 and need wrap around care.

Calculate the loss of giving up work and never having the mothers salary again. It often isn't easy to go back to work in a well paid job after a decade out.

Not to mention having a sahm as a teen can be utterly stifling.