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?!

But if you want to be a SAHP, someone has to earn.There's something off in complaining that it's wrong to place a value of respect on earning money when you are reliant on someone else earning money.

Yes exactly, someone has to, so you have a child with someone who is happiest in that role.
There is absolutely nothing off in suggesting it is wrong to place respect or value on money you bring into a home, absolutely nothing, as no healthy relationship should work in that way, at all.

Having a SAHP needs to be a dynamic and joint, ongoing decision. If one partner doesn't want to be the sole earner, they shouldn't have to be.
Couldn't agree more.

You're wondering the wrong thing, op. Why does a stay at home dad get a pat on the back for being so hands on? Why aren't working dads chewed up by guilt? And why aren't dads of all kinds at each other's throats about the choices they make?

[quote SparrowNest]@DrSbaitso again, nobody is saying that earning money isn’t valuable and important for a family. They’re saying it’s not the only way to contribute value to a family.

I hugely respect my husband and value what he does as the current (almost) sole breadwinner. He values that I care for our daughter, do almost all of the cooking and the bulk of the housework, and run various errands that make his/all our lives easier. The arrangement works for us. There’s mutual respect. Valuing one role doesn’t mean devaluing another.[/quote]
Well it's getting too close to "earning money is dirty business and not very important" for my liking, and sadly this horrible debate does sometimes go there. Though only when women earn money.

Just as one person shouldn't be made to be a SAHP if they don't want to be, nor should someone be appointed sole earner if they don't want to be...and if they don't want to be, they shouldn't be criticised as some sort of shallow materialist who doesn't respect anything other than earning.

There’s a difference between criticising people who don’t want to be the sole earner in their household, and criticising other people’s family arrangements because you don’t think it’s possible for the employed partner to respect the SAHP, and don’t think the SAHP is valuable to the family because their contributions aren’t in £ form.

Thinking that nothing without a defined monetary value has any value at all is shallow and materialistic. Thats a completely separate question from whether it’s fair for someone to be forced into being the sole breadwinner because their partner has unilaterally decided to become a SAHP. I 100% agree it’s the kind of thing you need to work out together, ideally in advance, though sometimes both circumstances and feelings can change.

For us, having me at home currently makes a lot of practical sense, but before I became a parent I didn’t realise how much I’d actually desire to be with my daughter all day every day. Luckily, my husband is on board, and though he loves spending time with her he’s told me he wouldn’t want to swap positions.

One thing I dislike about this threads is the narrative you often see that DH loves his job, thrives on the pressure, will never retire, extremely hardworking & ambitious, etc. These are all seen as positive traits in working fathers but less so in working mothers.

@SparrowNest

There’s a difference between criticising people who don’t want to be the sole earner in their household, and criticising other people’s family arrangements because you don’t think it’s possible for the employed partner to respect the SAHP, and don’t think the SAHP is valuable to the family because their contributions aren’t in £ form.

Thinking that nothing without a defined monetary value has any value at all is shallow and materialistic. Thats a completely separate question from whether it’s fair for someone to be forced into being the sole breadwinner because their partner has unilaterally decided to become a SAHP. I 100% agree it’s the kind of thing you need to work out together, ideally in advance, though sometimes both circumstances and feelings can change.

For us, having me at home currently makes a lot of practical sense, but before I became a parent I didn’t realise how much I’d actually desire to be with my daughter all day every day. Luckily, my husband is on board, and though he loves spending time with her he’s told me he wouldn’t want to swap positions.

Whatever. Just be careful about how you talk about respect, money and shallow materialism when you're reliant on someone else earning all the money.

Whatever. Just be careful about how you talk about respect, money and shallow materialism when you're reliant on someone else earning all the money.

But in a healthy relationship that partner is also respected, but not based on their pay check.

@DrSbaitso I have to say, you aren’t personally saying much to persuade you’re capable of seeing the value of anything that doesn’t have a monetary price attached.

This isn’t disrespect to working partners in single income households, it’s disrespect to you specifically.

@rubbletrouble

Whatever. Just be careful about how you talk about respect, money and shallow materialism when you're reliant on someone else earning all the money.

But in a healthy relationship that partner is also respected, but not based on their pay check.

They’re respected as people who work hard for the good of their families, paid work is definitely part of that. In the case of my husband it’s certainly not all he contributes.

The person you’re replying to seems offended at the suggestion paid employment isn’t the only thing of value that anyone can contribute. Very weird.

They’re respected as people who work hard for the good of their families, paid work is definitely part of that. In the case of my husband it’s certainly not all he contributes

Oh absolutely, but they are not respected and valued based on that. They are respected and valued for doing it, but not based on it..

I am lucky I had parents that held education in such high esteem - mainly because they didn't have it themselves. My parents were working class and both worked fulltime out of necessity but it was always a natural assumption that I would have a third level education.

I earn more than my husband now and we both work full time. In the job that I have, I can go part-time without it affecting my career prospects. My husband doesn't have the opportunity to go part-time.

If women become SAHMs because their wage wouldn't cover childcare, it indicates they don't have a choice in their decision.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if girls were educated and put on a career pathway that would give them actual choices about SAH or WOH rather than it being the default position because they don't have any other choice?

I wouldn't become a SAHM unless I was satisfied with what my financial position would be in the event of death of my DH / marriage breakdown / DH couldn't work due to illness.

@rubbletrouble agreed

@topwings

I am lucky I had parents that held education in such high esteem - mainly because they didn't have it themselves. My parents were working class and both worked fulltime out of necessity but it was always a natural assumption that I would have a third level education.

I earn more than my husband now and we both work full time. In the job that I have, I can go part-time without it affecting my career prospects. My husband doesn't have the opportunity to go part-time.

If women become SAHMs because their wage wouldn't cover childcare, it indicates they don't have a choice in their decision.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if girls were educated and put on a career pathway that would give them actual choices about SAH or WOH rather than it being the default position because they don't have any other choice?

I wouldn't become a SAHM unless I was satisfied with what my financial position would be in the event of death of my DH / marriage breakdown / DH couldn't work due to illness.

In a class stratified society by definition everyone can’t be a career high flyer. The only way to give all women genuine choice over whether to work is financial subsidies. Money for external childcare, or money so a parent can afford to stay home and do it themselves if that’s what they prefer. It makes a lot of sense to redistribute wealth away from people at a life stage where there income and assets are likely to be higher, but their family costs lower. There’s a reason that families with children are by far the most likely to be living in poverty in the UK and US.

@imamule

One thing I dislike about this threads is the narrative you often see that DH loves his job, thrives on the pressure, will never retire, extremely hardworking & ambitious, etc. These are all seen as positive traits in working fathers but less so in working mothers.

I can think of at least couple where the roles are reversed, and it suits them precisely because she’s far more career driven and he takes far more pleasure in the day-to-day aspects of caring for a preschooler.

You’re probably right about women being judged for things men are praised for, though. Maybe vice versa too

I definitely don’t think mn is anti sahp. I agree though there is a lot of sexism in the way we describe women who work but don’t spend much time with their kids versus the way we speak about men. It seems it’s ok for men just to contribute financially but not women. Why is that? A man not financially contributing is a cocklodger but women who don’t are devoted mothers who don’t want someone else to parent their dc, etc…

@rubbletrouble

Also shows how unhealthy some relationships are, where it is believed acceptable to only gain respect, be valued or be an equal if you bring home money to earn it.

Yes sure, who needs money for a decent standard of living? Fresh air and love will do. After all that’s what healthy relationships are about.

Yes sure, who needs money for a decent standard of living? Fresh air and love will do. After all that’s what healthy relationships are about.

Your response has no relevance to my post as I didn't say that

"I think women should aim to earn as much as or more than their partners and not be reliant on a man" Yes, everyone can magically choose their wage and if they aren't earning £50k a year they must be lazy sods.

Yes, everyone can magically choose their wage and if they aren't earning £50k a year they must be lazy sods.

No, you must just never fall in love with anyone with a better earning potential than you. Or if you meet young and fall in love and his career takes off before yours, he can just bin you off if you can't keep up, kids or no kids, off he pops

I just think it's an awful lot of pressure to put on the sole earner. How would it be if the shoe was on the other foot and the husband wanted to give up work? I wouldn't be happy being the sole earner and neither would my husband. It's a lot to ask of someone.

"Working is about self respect though, in my opinion. If it wasnt then why do most women with children in other countries bother to work?" This is the kind of comment people make when they NEVER assume long-term illnesses or disabilities could happen to them or that they might have to find a source of self-respect outside paid employment.

One thing I dislike about this threads is the narrative you often see that DH loves his job, thrives on the pressure, will never retire, extremely hardworking & ambitious, etc. These are all seen as positive traits in working fathers but less so in working mothers.

What surprises me is that most women actually believe their husbands when they say these things.

No doubt there are some men who thrive on business, but most just do it to support their family, and...well...because that's what men are supposed to do, right?

Men aren't supposed to show weakness and many also don't want their partner to feel bad, so they say "no, it's fine, I enjoy it." Same as when they hurt themselves and say "I'm ok" when they're clearly in pain. The male suicide figure belies all this though and shows that men as a group are not fine.

Another thing I often wonder is whether women's self reported happiness declining over the decades is down to the fact that many women focus on their career to compete with men. However, men don't need to compete with women. They work to support their families. Of course, many women also work as a safety net, but even this is IMO a less motivating factor than working to provide for your wife/children. It's driven by the fear of the 'worst case scenario', which frankly is pretty depressing to me.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's not surprising to me that people become unhappy when their main motivation is to compete with somebody else or to avoid something bad happening. It's the stick, not the carrot in a sense. The man thinks of his loved ones and uses this for motivation, which is positive motivation, whilst many women think "I'd better do this in case I end up destitute", which is negative motivation IMO.

The elephant in the room here is divorce, which happens in around 40% of marriages.

It is hard to run two households on one income and, frequently, the SAHP has deskilled and finds it hard to find remunerative work.

Equally, the working parent is not happy with EOW and one night a week, as that is not what they signed up for when agreeing to be the bread winner.

The SAHP/WOHP is a poor model if couples split.

@rubbletrouble

Your replies here have been very polite and considered. I’d just like to say that because some of the posters you’ve replied to haven’t haven’t shown anywhere near the respect you have but you’ve remained patient and eloquent throughout your exchanges.

Perhaps dealing with small children all day, every day does have its intellectual benefits 😉