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?!

@Awwlookatmybabyspider

Obviously it's each to their own but I'd hate to be a kept women. I'd rather have my own money. Yes your husband may be on mega bucks but that doesn't particularly mean he's a scatter the cash, does it. I'd feel like I was asking for pocket money.

My husband signed over a percentage of his business to me when we had our first child.

Where do I figure in your judgement?

@Booboosweet

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.

My husband obviously relishes the challenge. He knows he would hate looking after our child full time, and I would hate working full time.

Drum roll... I stay at home and he earns the money. Bob's ya uncle everyone's happy

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?

Seeing as SAHM are told time and time again on these threads they have no bearing on their husbands job, that they'd be doing exactly the same thing to exactly the same standard if they were single or childfree it's not that surprising.

It is a lot of pressure to the sole earner. Absolutely it is. I know because I did it, though not for years.

Dps company made load of people redundant at the first sniff of a pandemic. However, I would imagine the vast majority of couples discuss wether one should be a sahp or not. And it's a joint decision.

Part of that discussion should be for how long. If you are happy for your partner to be at home, is that forever? Is that till they go to school? If you are having a 2nd it's more than 4/5 years at home. So what's the plan?

And both should be prepared to change the plan. If the sole earner loses their job and can only get lower paid work, it may to be revised. If the sole earner gets a massive job opportunity, but involves travel (as an example) that needs discussion about the impact the on the one at home.

I do believe most couples, treat this as a joint endeavour. Where they are a team. Both respected. And if something isn't working both should be able to communicate that.

When the schools closed in March 2020. Me and dp, jointly decided that he would stop the search for a new job. So he could supervise my kids home schooling and go start looking again when they went back. Joint decision. I didn't lose respect for him. He didn't just stay not working. Joint decisions all the way.

In January, when the school closed, we juggled it all between us because he didn't want to give up work and then have to start looking again.

In a good relationship any set up can work.

Regarding the threads with hate regarding working mums, they were bad during the lockdowns. And, as a poster pointed out above, there's still a lot of vitriol against working parents who are still wfh and want to stay so.

They actually get quite nasty and ridiculous. People listing reasons that don't exist for having to go back. And it IS usually from posters that turn out to be sahm. One even claimed that wfh was breaking gdpr and had no concept that most companies had work from home policies before the pandemic.

But not all sahp, hate working parents. This whole issue comes down to the fact that some people are just horrible people and are nasty.

Some may just be well intentioned, but badly worded advice

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

I would far rather give up work and be at home with my children than hire a nanny to look after them. So shoot me!

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 agree.

Obviously there's nothing wrong with anyone of either sex leaning towards being career-oriented or the partner of the other sex leaning towards being nurturing and domestic.

But the way its described on these threads is frequently so gendered.

My husband obviously relishes the challenge. He knows he would hate looking after our child full time, and I would hate working full time.

Like this. Nothing wrong at all with this. But if the roles were reversed and a woman popped up and said: "I hate looking after my kids. Can't wait to get back to the office," you would get an absolute pile-on from the "why did you have kids you don't want to look after" brigade.

It's just interesting how little the language and the perception has changed around male vs female roles in the family.

But if the roles were reversed and a woman popped up and said: "I hate looking after my kids. Can't wait to get back to the office," you would get an absolute pile-on from the "why did you have kids you don't want to look after" brigade.

Too true. Can't even count the number of posts on here breezily explaining how much the man hates parenting and this apparently isn't an issue. Even a good thing sometimes, because it so well complements the woman's wishes.

I get it. I could have been a SAHM but didn't because I know I'd be miserable. Still, it's interesting how men who hate the idea of too many hours of parenting and wouldn't be good at it are neutral to good, and equivalent women are...not.

I've got full respect for people's choices and circumstances. There's nothing in the concept of a SAHP that bothers me. But the narrative around it sometimes gets sexist and hypocritical (respect/money/materialism, for example) and that does irritate me.

But the way its described on these threads is frequently so gendered.
When a woman is posting about staying at home while her husband works then surely the language is going to be gendered.

Although these threads are usually full of working women saying they couldn't contemplate staying at home with children, their brains would be mush, they'd be bored stiff etc

@mafted

But the way its described on these threads is frequently so gendered. When a woman is posting about staying at home while her husband works then surely the language is going to be gendered.

Although these threads are usually full of working women saying they couldn't contemplate staying at home with children, their brains would be mush, they'd be bored stiff etc

They are and the "my brain would be mush" argument is trite and insulting to SAHMs.

But if a man said he couldn't stay at home with his kids people would just shrug their shoulders and think nothing of it. No-one would suggest said man shouldn't have had children if he couldn't look after them.

Too true. Can't even count the number of posts on here breezily explaining how much the man hates parenting and this apparently isn't an issue.
Doesn't this go both ways though.
If it should be a issue if a Father feels this way then surely it should also be an issue for a Mother to feel this way.

Like this. Nothing wrong at all with this. But if the roles were reversed and a woman popped up and said: "I hate looking after my kids. Can't wait to get back to the office," you would get an absolute pile-on from the "why did you have kids you don't want to look after" brigade.

This is absolutely true. There was a thread around the time I had ds, so a good while a go around the sahp vs wohm.

Wohm were made out as though we were poor creatures Whom should have pity bestowed on them, because they were forced to work. As soon as I pointed out, it was a my choice to work and I didn't require anyones pity there was a pile on.

Especially when I pointed out because of my (now ex) husbands business (restaurant) we didn't require child care. As I worked days and he worked evenings.

Its the same as anything though. Language often applied to men and deemed a positive, is often a negative when applied to women. I have been labelled a bitch several times, because I don't let people take the piss out of me at work. Men are seen as straight forward and plain speaking.

@topwings 100% agree with you.

@mafted

Too true. Can't even count the number of posts on here breezily explaining how much the man hates parenting and this apparently isn't an issue. Doesn't this go both ways though. If it should be a issue if a Father feels this way then surely it should also be an issue for a Mother to feel this way.

It is. That's the point.

Men are frequently described in these threads, including this one, as being ill suited to, and shit at, too much parenting. And it's brushed off as a neutral thing that just happens to complement the woman's wishes, or even made into a good thing, for the same reason (and perhaps because he thrives on providing and business pressure etc etc). Men are allowed to hate parenting and it's neutral or even good.

But working mothers never get this neutral-to-good review.

I get it. I could have been a SAHM but didn't because I know I'd be miserable. Still, it's interesting how men who hate the idea of too many hours of parenting and wouldn't be good at it are neutral to good, and equivalent women are...not.

Yep I chose to work for a number of reasons, one being I love my job & colleagues. I don't particularly need to work from a financial perspective but I'm good at my job. Often Ive been told on other threads that it's sad to be obsessed with my job & if I can stay at home I should. 🙄

But working mothers never get this neutral-to-good review.

Quite. It's still very much seen as "unnatural" to want to work.

The narrative tends to go like this:

Single mother with no other income -- "you have to do what you have to do to survive - I wouldn't judge you"
Coupled family with low income "well, its not ideal but needs must can't you reduce your hours or can your OH take a day off?"
Comfortable family where woman has a career and chooses not to give up -- "Well you are clearly obsessed with your job and that's your choice but I chose to stay at home because you never get the time back."

Etc. No man ever in the history of the world was told that working FT to provide for is family in a job he happened to enjoy was "not ideal but needs must".

Men are frequently described in these threads, including this one, as being ill suited to, and shit at, too much parenting. And it's brushed off as a neutral thing that just happens to complement the woman's wishes, or even made into a good thing, for the same reason (and perhaps because he thrives on providing and business pressure etc etc). Men are allowed to hate parenting and it's neutral or even good.

But working mothers never get this neutral-to-good review.

What exactly is being argued for though?
All parents being viewed negatively for wanting to opt out of parenting or all parents being praised for opting out.

“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.”

Well, many men are like this and when you are married to one, there’s not a lot you can do about it. As I said, I know a lot of women who SAH, not just for the pre-school years, but beyond. I probably know hundreds. Think about it - you wouldn’t SAH if your husband wasn’t happy, would you? Who does that? How would that work?

Also, these type of men tend not to just have “a job” or “a salary” as such. Or if they do, they have money invested so that its working for them. My DH has always been involved in about 10-20 business interests at any time. If he doesn’t like something, he changes it. He could retire, but he’s doesn’t want to. There are loads like this - entrepreneurs who have sold companies and then get approached for non-exec positions. They can pick and choose. There are the bankers too and I guess they are salaried and locked into a role. But they also invest in other things. I don’t know a single SAHM family where it would be doomsday if he lost his job. It doesn’t work like that. If a husband felt constantly under pressure while the wife “swanned about,” chances are the marriage wouldn’t survive too long

Also, I do believe some men (not all) are happier when they have a distinct role in the family to financially provide and they can just get on with it. My husband is definitely like this and he’s far from being the only one. You can’t change people, not really. If a man like that marries a woman (like me) who feels a lot of guilt about using nannies or who discovers actually, she really enjoys being with the kids everyday herself and she’s good at it - then the SAHM model just happens naturally because both facilitate each other to live the life they want to lead. It’s just different personalities within different marriages really. I think certain types of men may attract certain types of women and vice versa - whether they realise it or not! Some people like doing everything 50/50, some hate that and prefer more defined roles. It evolves naturally. It really doesn’t matter and there is no blueprint for these things. As long as the couple are happy - who cares what anyone else thinks?

What exactly is being argued for though?
All parents being viewed negatively for wanting to opt out of parenting or all parents being praised for opting out.

What's asked for is simply parity.

To be fair, attitudes towards stay-at-home dads have come a long way recently and I rarely see perjorative posts on MN about them, with the exception of the occasional "cocklodger" remark.

SAHMs quite rightly want not to be looked down upon or considered lazy or stupid - and start threads all the time asking why everyone has it in for them.

But it works both ways. WOHMs want for it not to be implied that they are "money obsessed" if they enjoy their jobs or that they shouldn't have had children if they are not prepared to bring them up themselves.

@mafted

Men are frequently described in these threads, including this one, as being ill suited to, and shit at, too much parenting. And it's brushed off as a neutral thing that just happens to complement the woman's wishes, or even made into a good thing, for the same reason (and perhaps because he thrives on providing and business pressure etc etc). Men are allowed to hate parenting and it's neutral or even good.

But working mothers never get this neutral-to-good review.

What exactly is being argued for though?
All parents being viewed negatively for wanting to opt out of parenting or all parents being praised for opting out.

That doesn't even make sense.

Working is not opting out of parenting.

That's the point. But men can use to work to opt out and that's all fine and accepted.

Women want to work and be a parent and it's a negative.

Plenty of women balance work and parenting. But are allowed to use work to do very little and its acceptable.

Missed men out if that last sentence

But are allowed to use work to do very little and its acceptable.

@mafted

Men are frequently described in these threads, including this one, as being ill suited to, and shit at, too much parenting. And it's brushed off as a neutral thing that just happens to complement the woman's wishes, or even made into a good thing, for the same reason (and perhaps because he thrives on providing and business pressure etc etc). Men are allowed to hate parenting and it's neutral or even good.

But working mothers never get this neutral-to-good review.

What exactly is being argued for though?
All parents being viewed negatively for wanting to opt out of parenting or all parents being praised for opting out.

I'm arguing for not viewing men as neutral to good when they say they'd be shit at parenting and therefore it makes sense to work, while women are viewed as neutral to bad.

Given how many threads we see from SAHMs complaining that the dad does indeed do fuck all at home and takes lots of leisure time, it does indeed seem that it can become an opt out of parenting when Dad does it. And that's facilitated by the idea that men being crap at too much parenting is neutral at worst and positive at best.

There is so very much more to an individual than whether they work or not, or what their job is Unless you are a highly influential figure, most people’s jobs are irrelevant outside of their specific team or work environment. I used to go a public sector role which would be considered “worthy.” People used to say, “oh you must have so much patience and resilience....” Not really. There were elements that were rewarding and parts that were very frustrating - much like anything else in life, SAH included! Self-esteem isn’t a job title, it’s a state of mind. As a SAHM I’ve done many other things that perhaps I would never have even thought of if I’d been working and employed a nanny.

Having said this, I have friends who do work and it’s never even occurred to me that this adversely affects their role as a mum . It is literally irrelevant. They are just doing what works for them in the contexts of their own families. You can never judge from the outside - why would anyone care about anyone else? This kind of debate literally only happens on MN. In real life, nobody gives these things a second thought.

It has absolutely no impact on your life if that’s what a SAHM feels she has done…so why do you feel the need to query/judge/belittle her because that’s how she feels?
I don't feel any need, I come on AIBU to do what everyone does here, express their opinion. Be reassured that I don't go around my road, working out who is a SAHM and not, asking them about their career and telling them that of course they didn't give up theirs for their OH. I post here based on what i read here.

In any case, if your childcare costs would have been 3K, we are talking about kids still in nursery. That's not who my comments are directed to if the intention is to go back to work once they start school and said career can be resumed when childcare costs are more reasonable.

I'm talking about mums who are getting divorced, after 10-20 years of being a SAHM who claim that their OH could only earn what they are thanks to them sacrificing their career all those years ago. These are the ones I think expect sympathy for what they have supposedly loss purely for the love of their partner, who I don't believe are honest about their situations and choices, at least not all considering how often this comes up.

That doesn't even make sense.

Working is not opting out of parenting.

That's the point. But men can use to work to opt out and that's all fine and accepted.

Women want to work and be a parent and it's a negative.

Plenty of women balance work and parenting. But are allowed to use work to do very little and its acceptable.

The example used was the pp saying
My husband obviously relishes the challenge. He knows he would hate looking after our child full time,
It was argued that if a woman said this she would be judged.
What I'm asking is should the Men that say this be judged too or should all parents be able to say they'd hate to look after the children full time?

I'm arguing for not viewing men as neutral to good when they say they'd be shit at parenting and therefore it makes sense to work, while women are viewed as neutral to bad.

Yes. This phrase "it made sense" (in the context of "it made sense for me to stay at home") is a very interesting one. Because it always seems to "make sense" for the woman to stay at home, rarely the man.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with this on a family-by-family basis. People make decisions to suit their circumstances and if it suits you best it suits you best.

But I do think its worth unpicking this a bit at a social level. If 90% of the time it "makes sense for us as a family" for the woman to step back from her career, its worth wondering why this should always be the case. As opposed to passively accepting that it "makes sense".