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?!

@Treacletoots
It’s really your partners attitude towards you that dictates whether you are seen as an equal in your own home.

If DH was giving me an allowance, etc. then I would be the 1950s definition of a “kept woman”. He doesn’t, we’re a team. We’re equals. We have a joint bank account that pretty much everything goes into. We budget, we spend, we manage OUR finances.

WE ARE EQUALS AND RESPECT EACH OTHER AS SO.

I might start a new thread asking why people on MN actually give AF about other people’s lives…

No idea why SAHMs feel the need to justify what they do with their time? Most jobs have busy periods and doss periods. We all take our moments when we can!

I’ll be totally honest and say that my life is quite easy as a SAHM these days. Yes there are busy days for sure, but less of them. My kids are 12, 14, 16 and 18. I’m really enjoying it.

It used to be hectic when they were little, obviously. I was literally with them every day. No help. I would have hated having some other woman around - just another thing to deal with. No family help. But I’d do it all again. I never became a SAHM to do cleaning and my husband was very clear wanted me available for the children. This was very important to him (and me). So we always had a cleaner twice a week. But I would say I do a lot of additional stuff that I simply would not have time to do if I’d been at work. Some is for myself (increasingly), but mostly for the kids or DH. Having 4 kids is a lot. There’s always something.

Most people I know (these days) are similar to me. At the prep schools certainly, about 80% were SAHMs. Not sure at secondary level, as I have less contact. I’ve been very involved in their education. My kids do a lot of extra stuff and there’s been a lot of ferrying about. I couldn’t have paid a nanny enough to do what I do and it would have been unreasonable to expect it from anyone else.

I’ll be honest, all the DHs are successful entrepreneurs or in finance, that kind of thing. Let’s just say, none of them have a hoot about any additional the wife may or may not bring in. It’s the sort of money they could make or lose on the City Index daily. All have shared family money - this is a given, obviously. They have investments mainly, so it’s not solely about income. God knows what they do tbh, but they have things structured so the money works for them. I’ve no idea what my husband is doing half the time. He’s never just had a job and hasn’t had a salary since his 20s. Always self-employed. No such thing as “working hours” - he just does what he needs to do as and when. I’ve never stopped him. Why would I?

I realise this is not the norm on a national scale by any means, but it is normal in areas where there is a high concentration of SAHMs. It stands to reason. These women are highly educated and once had professional jobs - they wouldn’t give it up if there was a whiff of financial insecurity or if it held them back (in terms of spending options) in any way. I will be honest and say the men are generally workaholics (or borderline). Most could actually retire in their 40s, having made millions selling a company or something similar, but they don’t want to because they wouldn’t know that to do with themselves. They generally have extreme (expensive) hobbies as well - there’s a lot of that. But the wives don’t mind at all because they have a good deal and they know it. So that’s my perspective if I’m being honest.

I agree, there’s a difference between SAHM to preschool and school age children…but then there a holidays to consider along with illness, etc.

Why should relatives be expected to step in…one set of GP in their 70s, another recently retired with a holiday home.

I’m not going to ask them to give up their lives to care for my children. As much as they love them.

Also, for any reason that they suddenly couldn’t care for them then what would I do? I’d be screwed.

But then I'll complain that I miss them!

We go away every year for a few days without them (last time was Feb 2020) but always end up missing them after a few days. It's annoying!

@Benjispruce5

I meant it in every sense.

I'm there for my children all the time in every sense at the minute too as a SAHM, to the point where it's driving me insane, I can't even take a piss on my own. It certainly doesn't make me a superior parent. If anything, I was better parent when I was working because I was MORE emotionally available when I was back home. My DH was the SAHP for 2 years and now we've swapped - he hasn't stopped being there for his kids because he's working again. What nonsense.

@cosima8 my dc are still young but I would say at our prep the vast majority of SAHMs have a nanny or au pair. And the vast majority of mothers actually work albeit p/t. Maybe it's a generational difference? Although the vast majority aren't married to multi millionaires but very good earners so maybe it's that.

If you’re at work you’re not there. Unless you’re Mr Claypole!

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

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,

DH is 67, works a physical job part time because that's all he can manage, we get WTC. If I work more than 10 hours a week, they start taking the extra income off WTC. I can't find a job for so few hours.

@Benjispruce5

If you’re at work you’re not there. Unless you’re Mr Claypole!

But you are there before and after childcare and at weekends. You're "there" far more than you're not.

And after the age of five children are at school six hours a day. Once you have a school-aged child being "there" is irrelevant as the child isn't "there".

Hi, my husband does more and childcare would take up everything I earn. You're correct it's a joint expense, but we also treat our whole income as joint, therefore there will be months where it may actually cost us for me to be at work. I don't particularly want to be a SAHM but it works best for our family right now, and I want whatever is best for us.

If you’re at work you’re not there

Erm, well yeah, but is it totally beyond the scope of your understanding that if nursery were to call and say ‘your dc isn’t themselves today’ for the parent to just drop work and go pick them up?

You can still be there for them when they need it.

Yes ok working parents can be in two places at once. Happy?

but @Benjispruce5 if the dc are in school why does it matter if you're at home or at work as either way you can't be in school with them?

You’ve missed the point, obviously people can’t be in two places at once.

Just because a parent works it doesn’t mean they can’t drop work whenever the dc needs it.
If nursery let me know he’s not acting like himself today I’ll go get him, if I see on the app he hasn’t eaten like he usually would or hasn’t slept like he usually would I ask and they tell me. Neither work nor nursery is prison..

@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.

Exactly. Funny how this element of feminism escapes scrutiny in this debate. You cannot pick and choose between aspects of equality, especially ones which have taken a long time for women to acquire. Men need to be held to account for doing their fair share of childcare while women the earning.

@Benjispruce5

Yes ok working parents can be in two places at once. Happy?

For someone who says they are past caring you seem to care quite a lot.

I was a sahm when my children were at home. I worked when they went to school. I chose to do that because I believed it to be best at that young age and we planned our choices accordingly. Disclaimer before I get flamed/ others think working and childcare is best.

@Benjispruce5

Yes ok working parents can be in two places at once. Happy?

No-one's saying this - you seem to be going out of your way to miss the point.

The relevant points are:

a) that a child spends far more time on a net basis with the parent than the childminder/nursery and remains in the care of the parent after stopping being in the childcare setting
b) that the contact with the parent is far more intimate than with the childminder/nursery - it is a lifetime relationship
c) that once a child starts school (and they are there for the majority of their childhood) there is no additional benefit to the child in having a parent at home, beyond the fact that there is someone on hand to pick up more of the domestic work and admin.

@vivainsomnia

As a previous sahm I wouldn't say I've sacrificed my career at all Just to be clear, my comments are only aimed at women who claim that their husband earn a lot because they have sacrifice their own career to facilitate theirs, which is oddly a very common statement on MN.

If one partner earns a lot, and the other was too before giving it up, surely they had enough to pay for a nanny.

My dh earns a lot - if he had to share childcare with me he would earn less - I didn't sacrifice my career to facilitate his - I didn't enjoy my career and wanted to be at home with my kids, we had enough money, so it suited us both. What suited me, suited his career. And we both make financial decisions about our future - I am not subservient, he is not bitter and stressed about working. I do not have to request permission to spend, my pension has been sorted, we have a strong marriage...we suited ourselves and our circumstances isn't that what everyone should do?

What's it to you?

I went back to work once they started school.

@Benjispruce5 So you wouldn't agree to take the universal free 15 hours before school as that would mean not being there?

I’ve never seen any negativity towards SAHM’s on here but have towards SAHD’s. I applaud any stay at home parent, I was one for 2 years and wouldn’t do it again!

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. Really does depend on the man - my dh was happy to go to work and happy to see photos we sent him went we were having lovely days out - his family having fun made him smile and feel good. Resentment is not an emotion my dh embraces - there is no imbalance of power in our relationship. (I wouldn't allow it)

I think they did a couple of mornings (9-11)a week at nursery in the summer term to prepare for school.

The nursery was part of the primary school.