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?!

Or disdain "I'd be bored out of my brain" because I'm so much smarter

Yup. This. I've always had this as a sahm

@vivainsomnia

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 I really don't understand this and why some claim that it isn't possible for both parents to have a career. There are different options to make it happen. Many manage to earn a good income working 9-5 or 6pm and do so around nursery/afterschool clubs/ childminders.

Those when both parents are expected to start early/finish late usually employ a nanny. Those who need to travel for their job have a nanny who is more flexible and can do nights on occasions or have an au pair.

So why are those options not available for some people? For the Au Pair and space, my friend had her kids share their room when they were younger so the Au Pair could have her room.

I really do believe that any parent whose career really matter to them always manage to find ways to do so.

Really? You don't understand how a couple might work hours unsuitable for standard childcare but not earn enough for a full time nanny? It amazes me how some posters can be so blinkered to real life.

Child with SEN who can't access childcare provision- nope Daddy just doesn't care about his career enough to make it work.

Both parents work nights for a chunk of the month- nope, if you really cared about your careers you wouldn't need sleep.

Mums job requires her to be away from home four nights a week, Dads job requires him to be on call three nights a week but they don't earn enough for a nanny- nope if your jobs mattered enough you wouldn't need Granny to stay over and mind the children.

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

But that’s exactly the point. You don’t HAVE to pay someone else to do it! You can do it yourself. Then it’s not ‘work’.

For example, I’m not a dentist. I can’t look after/fix my own teeth/families teeth. I can’t do that work. Someone else has to do that work. I can however go out and do my work then come home and clean a shower, wash dishes, put on laundry, do shopping, look after kids, play with them and make their lunch (when they were younger). So these are tasks I can do. They are not work I have to pay someone else to do. Some people may want to but (disability aside) don’t have to, unlike the dentist for example where you do have to pay someone else to do it.

I think one person can facilitate the others career.

I just don't think it's a given. I do think on mn it's assumed a high earner can only do that if their partner sacrifices their own career. I think its situation specific, iyswim.

I see more that it's assumed that because a high earning, privileged couple make it work then everyone else can too.

The problem with being a SAHM is it’s short sighted. Far too many women find themselves in a shitty situation where they do have no say in how money is spent, or they are left high and dry later in life with no pension and little or no child support.

There are few situations where it’s sensible to stay outside the workforce for more than a couple of years. The older you get/further from actual work experience the harder it is to find a way back to a job, never mind a career.
With something like 50%+ of marriages ending in divorce it’s pretty important to have your own financial security and not just rely on your husband sticking around.

If you’re not married and are a SAHM then you’re just insane (unless independently well off)

I don't understand the "facilitating someone's career" by staying at home. The other person would most likely still have that career, just probably no kids.

@Whiskycav

I worked full time while my husband earned very little setting up his business. He absolutely would not have been able to do it without me.

But that’s exactly the point. You don’t HAVE to pay someone else to do it! You can do it yourself. Then it’s not ‘work’.

But if you are working full time you cant (usually - unless your job is childcare) be simultaneously looking after your baby or toddler at the same time...so you pay someone else to do the childcare aspect.
This is why I dont get the argument of working parents that say they do everything the SAHP does and go to work - when talking about preschool age children. They are missing out the childcare aspect covering the hours they are working/commuting. (I agree that all the chores/admin/housework are the same - possibly more admin relating to the childcare required)
My DS used to go to after school club when I was working. I wasnt doing the same as a SAHP because they would be doing the childcare for their own child whereas I had outsourced it to the afterschool club staff.

@HoppingPavlova

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.

I’m in no way putting anyone down? Just saying that as parents who both worked full time long hours and did all SAHP jobs in the hours we weren’t working with no outside childcare or housekeepers at all one was a doddle compared with the other, and we weren’t working 4 jobs between us, we were working 2 jobs between us and then parenting and looking after our home environment on top of that.

No idea why it had to be a decision for you that one person had to work full time so one person had to be the SAHP with absolutely no other options? You can generally get creative and swing it so both parents can work full time and then swap to SAHP mode when you come home and tag the other parent going off to work. There’s heaps of permutations that allow this - we did many over the years our kids were young. My DH left his field of work for a decade as it was a pretty inflexible 9-5 industry so that he could take on flexible work so we could both work full time with someone always at home with the kids. It was more sensible for him to be the one that did that as I was the higher earner and had a job that could work essentially work any shift 7 days. If he had of been the higher earner and stuck in a 9-5, I would have been happy to step back and take a job with flexibility around that. When he returned to his field it was several levels lower than when he left but he made his way back up and is now steps ahead again and has been able to use various skills picked up in his time out of the industry to benefit him and look worthwhile on paper when he returned and went for subsequent promotions.

I'll repeat my point again, as despite quoting it, you've missed it.

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.

I'm glad that was able to work for you. It would not for us, for many reasons and it shouldn't be much of a stretch to imagine that people have different circumstances to your own (career paths without that flexibility, no higher earner, disabilities, children with special needs, caring responsibilities for ill family members). We tried every which way to make it work. Through both working full time, both part time, one part time with the other full time. The only way it's worked for us, in our circumstances, has been for one parent to be the SAHP. To try and minimise the impact on our careers, we've taken it in turns. That was our "creative" way of making it work for us. I'm aware it doesn't work for other people.

And for what it's worth, I found working full time easier than being the SAHP.

I’d want my daughter to pick a partner based on his personality, common interests, kindness etc not the size of his wallet and I would be horrified if she thought being female meant she didn’t have to fund her way in life. Likewise I’ve warned my son to watch for partners interested in what he can provide and to look for an equal instead. You assume your son will be successful and wealthy and will have to watch out for vultures and your daughter will be in a crap job and is in danger of becoming one of those vultures. What an attitude! I hope they don't compare notes!

To wonder why MN is so unpleasant about SAHMs/MILs and Older women?

The WASPI thread is vile.

@pinkfanman

I’d want my daughter to pick a partner based on his personality, common interests, kindness etc not the size of his wallet and I would be horrified if she thought being female meant she didn’t have to fund her way in life. Likewise I’ve warned my son to watch for partners interested in what he can provide and to look for an equal instead. You assume your son will be successful and wealthy and will have to watch out for vultures and your daughter will be in a crap job and is in danger of becoming one of those vultures. What an attitude! I hope they don't compare notes!

I hope they are both successful and find equal partners. They are both raised the same, to have a good work ethic and not rely on a partner or the state to support their life choices. They can happily compare notes as they will be the same.

@CrouchEndTiger12

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.

Exactly this. When DD was born I was on £28,000 a year, DH on £18,000, I went back to work full time when DD was 9 months old and it was hard finding the £1000 a month for nursery but it was only hard for 2 and a half years then her 3 year old funding came in and childcare costs dropped drastically. As I'd been back working full time I was able to keep progressing in my career so by the time the funding kicked in I was on £35,000. Now DD is 7 years old and my salary is £80,000 a year. There's no way I would have been at this level now if I'd taken 4 years out of work to be a SAHM till she started school, so for us the 2/3 years of being on a tight budget and spending twice as much on childcare as we were on our mortgage worked out for the best.

We were able to balance our working hours so DH worked earlies and could pick her up from school rather than use afterschool club and I could take her in rather than use breakfast club so she still gets lots of parent time around school hours.

everyone, and their circumstances are unique. There is enough crap bringing women down already. .without other women doing it to. sometimes whether you go to work or not isn't even a choice. imagine if we accepted other women's choices. .even supported them! what could we achieve

@Eyjafjallajokulldottir

A lot of it stems from jealousy - many parents would love to stay at home and resend having to work, so they convince themselves that they're somehow morally superior for going out to work.

Nope, pity maybe.

For others they're unable to understand that not everyone is like them - not everyonewantsa career.

Just like you seem incapable of understanding that not everyone is like you? Not everyone wants to stay at home all day. What a waste.

You clearly didn't read my post properly - I said that I've never been a SAHM. I had 9 months of mat leave and apart from that have always worked full time.

The difference between you and me is that I understand that not everyone is the same. I'd hate to stay at home, I love my career, 9bviously you do too, but that doesn't mean everyone else needs to do the same to be happy. You don't need to pity most SAHMs, they're (mostly) happy and have chosen to be there, just as you choose to work.

We're all different, and that's a good thing

Thank you for this thread OP. I am a SAHM and I do see what you are seeing. I also really worry that so many women are so quick to say LTB on here, as though men were just a spare part with no intrinsic value or usefulness. I think that is terribly sad. I worry about what their sons are learning from that, seeing the fathers being thrown away like old rubbish.

£800 a month? Try £1100

@tootingbeclido

everyone, and their circumstances are unique. There is enough crap bringing women down already. .without other women doing it to. sometimes whether you go to work or not isn't even a choice. imagine if we accepted other women's choices. .even supported them! what could we achieve

This seems like a great attitude to me.

@fertilitybs

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Why was I tagged in this thread?

@SchrodingersImmigrant

I don't understand the "facilitating someone's career" by staying at home. The other person would most likely still have that career, just probably no kids.

Ok then 'facilitating their career whilst allowing them to be a parent'

For what it's worth the negativity tends to be aimed at those who continue to stay at home when the child is in school.

Paying for a couple of hours of after-school care is pretty affordable, and you can get a decent job (it doesn't have to be a minimum wage role in a school 'so you can have the holidays')

If people want to do it that's cool, I guess. It's not for me. I went back to work when my youngest went back, retraining in something twice the salary of my old job and with a real future. I like a challenge. Sitting at home with the TV on or something isn't me.

These threads are so funny.
Families do what’s best for them. Everyone has different circumstances and values, which can change with life events and opportunities.
Not all SAHPs are reliant on their partner, financially.
It can be a life stage choice which doesn’t cover the whole of adult life.
It really isn’t anyone else’s business, is it?

@Thadhiya “Sitting at home with the tv on or something isn’t me”

Judgemental assumption in a beautiful nutshell.

I think fundamentally there is still a lot of hatred directed at women in society and unfortunately that comes from both men and other women. I really don't get why people get all hot and bothered about how other people live their lives, as long as the family are happy and well cared for with whatever arrangements that parents put in place that should be enough.

For what it's worth the negativity tends to be aimed at those who continue to stay at home when the child is in school.
Oh well that's ok then