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?!

Being kept???

This isn't the 1950s. If we want to be treated as equals, we need to behave like equals, by not expecting our partners to keep us

They aren't being kept. They are working as a team.

We can be treated like equals and not be the same. The fight for equality isn't the fight to have all mothers in work. It was so women had the choice. So that men also had the equal choice to stay at home.

That your sex didn't determine, all your life choices.

@Treacletoots

Agree with *@NoIDontWatchLoveIsland*

This isn't the 1950s. If we want to be treated as equals, we need to behave like equals, by not expecting our partners to keep us.

Also agree that some of us work full time and still manage to do the above. Hobbies, children's hobbies, community activities, allotments, dog walking and so on.

But then I actually thought looking after DC full time was harder than any paid job and was relieved to go back to full time work. So I don't think they're lazy, but I do think they're part of the reason women are still the ones who give up their jobs, who earn less and ultimately suffer if the relationship goes to shit. Because nothing changes if nothing changes. If you're expecting to be kept by your partner, when you're perfectly capable of working, then you're not equal. There's an imbalance of power and understandably the earning partner gets resentful being treated like a cash cow.

Wow.

What in the fuck is this.

So iiiiii'm responsible for other women earning less and for them giving up work?!

I'm very much an equal with my husband. Just because I'm not sitting in a soulless office, tapping out some boring email on a keyboard doesn't make me less of a person!

I chose to stay at home and look after my child. It's 100% the right decision for me.

Toddler & reception

My point isnt that I fit loads in, it's that that sort of stuff isn't generally a big time commitment?

School governors and other voluntary roles generally dont ask for huge amounts of time - they are usually a monthly meeting and there might be an hours worth of stuff to read, another couple of hours doing some organising type work in addition to the meeting.

Does it take 20 hours a week every week - no way! I need as much sleep as the next human

Also fair play to the people who do genuinely do as many hours of unpaid voluntary work as a paid job might require, every week, long term. That's valuable to society. But I don't think that is the case of many SAHP of school aged children.

Fgs 'being kept'. Really?

There is a lot of unpleasantness about SAHMs on here, you're right. It wasn't always like this. I joined in 2006-7ish, and it was much more "live and let live."

I was a SAHM mum for years because I believed the best person to care for my children was me. Not their dad, although he's great. Not my mum, although she's fab and would've loved to. And not childminders, nannies or nursery staff, no matter how experienced and well-qualified. Me. And I was in the privileged position to be able to afford to do so, so I did. I have no regrets.

I don't have judgement against women who made different choices, though. I did what was right for my family, and they did what was right for theirs.

@whistlers I agree sahp are not being kept. And I think posts like that are rude.

But why do you feel the need to put down wohp parents to say that? Why reduce their jobs to boring emails and soul less offices?

[quote Katedanielshasakitty]@whistlers I agree sahp are not being kept. And I think posts like that are rude.

But why do you feel the need to put down wohp parents to say that? Why reduce their jobs to boring emails and soul less offices?[/quote]
The job I left was soulless and boring. I was talking about my experience of my job which lead to my decision to become a SAHM.

Now that IS an offensive bunch of words no matter how you read it!

@Benjispruce5

Now that IS an offensive bunch of words no matter how you read it!

Not me? That eejit with the 'kept' shite?

Yes . I’m too slow a typist obviously( too much time out of the workplace)

Danniduck

You must see that people there are trying to be positive when someone is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Of course its possible to regain a career after a long gap. However its much harder than if you've just maintained one throughout, even if you've gone quite part time and taken some maternity leave. Your CV looks very different with a big gap on it, you get out of the habit of going to work.

* Which is what I am thinking is half of the problem here (a few total dicks aside) the intention isn't to attack sahp or wohp. But the poor wording makes it read like that.

I agree, often people feel the need to validate their choices by putting down others.

I think that there is a massive difference in SAHM of pre schoolers and school age children, and the older the children the greater the difference.

Looking after babies and toddlers is hard work, equal to any paid job. Looking after children who go to school , far less so. If you end up dropping the children off, going to the gym, and then lunch with a friend, you are not really a SAHM, more a ‘lady who lunches’.

Having said that, if both partners are happy and neither resentful, it is not my or anyone else’s business.

It is only annoying when you see the pettiness of some of the gripes and the posts from parents vicariously living through their children. Then, of course, the thought of ‘FHS, get a job’ definite occurs….

@Treacletoots

Agree with *@NoIDontWatchLoveIsland*

This isn't the 1950s. If we want to be treated as equals, we need to behave like equals, by not expecting our partners to keep us.

Also agree that some of us work full time and still manage to do the above. Hobbies, children's hobbies, community activities, allotments, dog walking and so on.

But then I actually thought looking after DC full time was harder than any paid job and was relieved to go back to full time work. So I don't think they're lazy, but I do think they're part of the reason women are still the ones who give up their jobs, who earn less and ultimately suffer if the relationship goes to shit. Because nothing changes if nothing changes. If you're expecting to be kept by your partner, when you're perfectly capable of working, then you're not equal. There's an imbalance of power and understandably the earning partner gets resentful being treated like a cash cow.

True equality gives parents choices. It's not very empowering to have simply one choice.

And of course you can be equal to your partner if you aren't working...it all depends on your family dynamic and how money is viewed.

You also assume the earning partner gets resentful. Many like the convenience of not having to worry about taking time off for sick children or school holidays.

In your post you try to make yourself sound progressive by saying 'its not the 1950s' but then blame sahm for the fact that some other women give up their jobs and end up suffering in poor relationships. We can only be responsible for the decisions of ourselves not others. It's not progressive to blame what's essentially patriarchy on women.

‘Being there’ is just a choice of words. We all know what being a sahm involves. I was ‘there’ instead of at work.

When you put it like that it makes total sense and I'm sure you didn't deliberately set out to be goady.

But you said higher up: "being there for my children was more important than a career". Which is pretty inflammatory because it clearly suggests there's a binary choice between "being there" and "having a career".

SAHMs make these decisions for perfectly sensible and practical reasons and I have no problem with this, in fact I applaud it.

But it slightly sticks in the craw when, on a thread entitled "Why is MN so unpleasant about SAHMs", there are a bunch of SAHMs writing posts full of implied superiority because they have made a sacrificial and self-denying choice to "be there for" their children, in contrast to the working mums who, by implication, have chosen not to "be there".

Words do matter. There are unpleasant cliches on both sides of this argument but if we want to talk about this like grown-ups we need to be careful to avoid it. And its quite noticeable that on a thread entitled: "Why is MN unpleasant to SAHMs" there are actually quite a lot of SAHMs suggesting that they have "chosen" their children over their career. You can't have it both ways. If you really feel you're being picked on you need to rise above the unpleasant sleights and not just pile in with ill thought out and inflammatory language.

Fuck it.

I'm going to start calling myself a Kept Woman or a Lady who Lunches depending on my mood.

Take the power back.

Can't wait til my child starts school so I can fuck around spending my husband's money. PARTY

I'm the devil incarnate as I had childcare despite not working. The dc are in school & Im still p/t but have the holidays off. They still go to activ camp things despite me not being at work.

My child does 2 days a week at nursery while I order pret breakfast and watch tv ✌🏻

NO REGRETS

2 days wasn't enough for me 😆

(As a side note) i don't think this race to the bottom or everyone trying to win the 'I'm working the hardest and I'm the most miserable' Olympics is helpful to anyone.

@imamule

2 days wasn't enough for me 😆

To be fair, if I could justify more I would! One more year til reception.

But then I'll complain that I miss them!

@TheReluctantPhoenix

I think that there is a massive difference in SAHM of pre schoolers and school age children, and the older the children the greater the difference.

Looking after babies and toddlers is hard work, equal to any paid job. Looking after children who go to school , far less so. If you end up dropping the children off, going to the gym, and then lunch with a friend, you are not really a SAHM, more a ‘lady who lunches’.

Having said that, if both partners are happy and neither resentful, it is not my or anyone else’s business.

It is only annoying when you see the pettiness of some of the gripes and the posts from parents vicariously living through their children. Then, of course, the thought of ‘FHS, get a job’ definite occurs….

Some people I know who are SAHPs to older children have, frankly, different standards in the home than I manage pregnant with a almost 2-year-old who is a terrible sleeper.

Their houses are immaculate, they cook and bake complex recipes every day, host a lot, take a lot of pride in their gardens and so on.

I don’t think that housekeeping and caring for a family has to be a full time job once your kids are at school. Clearly it doesn’t. I think it’s definitely possible to approach it a job that fills those hours, though. When those women say they feel it’s equivalent to a full-time job I don’t think they’re necessarily liars who spend all day lazing around eating bonbons, which seems to be the assumption on here.