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?!

You can't have an intelligent discussion with someone whose only contribution is to insist, over and over, that anyone with a different preference in life choices is just wel jel. If it's not a troll, it may as well be for the level of insight and thought it's bringing to the debate.

If I did believe that staying at home narrows your mind and thinking power - I don't, just to be clear, but if I did - an "argument" like that would not do anything to change my mind.

@Happy36

I've never seen opinions on MN like the OP describes. I've been here for 7 years.

WHAT?!? There are loads of them on this thread!

I said it before and I will say it again. It's pure jealousy.

It really isn’t. When me and my husband eventually have a child together we could afford for one of us to give up work without having to make any significant sacrifices. We both want to continue working, to allow this to happen he has also gone part time, so when the time comes we’re both already part time so no trying to get a decent work contract when adoption leave ends.

I work part time, I like working, I enjoyed adoption leave, I took an additional three months, but it isn’t something I would want to do on a more permanent basis, to the point that if we are only matched to a child who needs one parent at home all the time we will say no thank you.

I wouldn't want a life of relying on somebody else's money. I would find it very disempowering. No thanks.
I'm interested to know what your thoughts are on inheritance and financial gifts from family members for house deposits etc.

But it's not someone else's money. It's our money

My employer must be doing it wrong then as my salary, contract and payslip all only have my name on. Not to mention DH does none of my job and likewise I don’t do his.

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

But it's not someone else's money. It's our money

My employer must be doing it wrong then as my salary, contract and payslip all only have my name on. Not to mention DH does none of my job and likewise I don’t do his.

And the sky bill and utilities have my name on. Should I not let my husband use the tv or have the heating on?

In fairness legally it is not shared, its a decision that both take (unless you get divorced, but you wouldn't get half of someone's wage going forward), but at anytime whoever receives the money from their employer can have it sent to their own account.

It isn't legally joint money. Only by agreement. Which only takes a letter or phone call to the bank to change.

“I wouldn't want a life of relying on somebody else's money.”

All you are (not very subtly) revealing there is the attitude to money within your particular relationship / marriage. Working or not, I’d rather eat my own arm than be in a relationship with that type of financial mentality. Very depressing. The mind boggles, actually.

@Viviennemary

It isn't legally joint money. Only by agreement. Which only takes a letter or phone call to the bank to change.

I believe it is if you are married, although the earner could make it difficult for you to get it if they wanted to.

@cosima8

“I wouldn't want a life of relying on somebody else's money.”

All you are (not very subtly) revealing there is the attitude to money within your particular relationship / marriage. Working or not, I’d rather eat my own arm than be in a relationship with that type of financial mentality. Very depressing. The mind boggles, actually.

Agreed. An older woman once asked what I had to do in the bedroom to “make it up to” my husband because he signed over shares in his company to me when we had children so I wouldn’t have to go straight back to work. I wasn’t offended, just really worried for her and the dynamic of her relationship.

I would love to give up work to look after our DC, but sadly it’s not an option due to finance. I’ve said this to a few people in real life and have felt quite judged for it, so tend to keep it to myself now!

@DrSbaitso

You can't have an intelligent discussion with someone whose only contribution is to insist, over and over, that anyone with a different preference in life choices is just wel jel. If it's not a troll, it may as well be for the level of insight and thought it's bringing to the debate.

If I did believe that staying at home narrows your mind and thinking power - I don't, just to be clear, but if I did - an "argument" like that would not do anything to change my mind.

This, with bells on.

I've been determined to be as dispassionate as I possibly can here.

But you can't on the one hand be saying: "everyone is vile to us, what have we done to you" and then in another breath be saying: "you're all just jealous".

If you want to have an adult discussion about why there is sometimes mutual suspicion between women who work and women who remain exclusively at home to rear their children, you have to stop with the name-calling. That goes for both sides.

I don't think mumsnet is collectively down on SAHMs, but I do notice an attitude sometimes where if someone is staying at home to look after young children, the other partner should not be expected to contribute to the cleaning or maintenance of their own home purely because they go out of the house to work. I don't like that. Both adults should be responsible for their home.

believe it is if you are married, although the earner could make it difficult for you to get it if they wanted to.

How would an employer know your husband or wife
Salaries are paid to individuals

@TempleofZoom

believe it is if you are married, although the earner could make it difficult for you to get it if they wanted to.

How would an employer know your husband or wife
Salaries are paid to individuals

Someone said that legally it isn't shared money. I think it is between married couples, nothing to do with where the employer puts it in the first instance; spouse has a claim. But the claim can be made difficult if the earner wants to be obstructive.

@thepeopleversuswork

I said it before and I will say it again. It's pure jealousy

It really isn't. If you read this thread you will see a large proportion of women who work saying they couldn't bear to be at home full time. Not making a judgement on this perspective but they can't all be lying.

There are multiple reasons why this is such an emotive subject on both sides but its way too simplistic to put it all down to jealousy.

I agree. Some people love to be a SAHM, some people would hate it. There is no right or wrong, and it doesn't come down to one side automatically being jealous of the other. People are just different.

It depends what you classify as "legally". In a single income household the salary/wages are paid to the earner in his/her bank account so its legally his/hers at the point where its paid and then they presumably have the authority over the money at that point.

If the couple divorce then generally speaking that money will be divided on a 50/50 basis.

But not sure there's any legal precedent to dictate who "owns" the pooled money in a combined household. Presumably that comes down to the willingness of the earner to share the money.

All the more reason IMHO why you have more protection a) if you earn at least some of your own money and don't have to rely on the breadwinner having a progressive approach and b) if you are not married to an arsehole who considers it "his" money.

But an interesting question.

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

But it's not someone else's money. It's our money

My employer must be doing it wrong then as my salary, contract and payslip all only have my name on. Not to mention DH does none of my job and likewise I don’t do his.

Are you that narrow minded?

My employer must be doing it wrong then as my salary, contract and payslip all only have my name on. Not to mention DH does none of my job and likewise I don’t do his.
Do you only live in your portion of the house, only eat food if you've paid for it? If you're married and you split pretty much all finances will be considered.

if that’s how a divorced SAHM feels then maybe that is their experience
Of course it is. I am not saying that I'm right, I don't know these people, I just find it very strange how common it is on the divorce board (and others), especially as there is never any information on the career that was given up or why they couldn't attempt to go back to it.

I definitely don't agree that you can't have two people working FT in careers just because so many do so and find ways to do so. That doesn't mean that everyone should, just that I do not believe in the reasons put forward, unless in instances of children with severe special needs.

Why do you assume SAHM gave up their careers against their will?!
I don't that's my point, but that's what some posters say, not that they were threatened to stop, but they claiming that they had no choice because of x, y and z, when these reasons are overcome by many working parents.

could sort us out for life. Let’s go and give it 2 years.” So she goes, 2 years turn into 6 and then when they return, she has a bigger than anticipated gap in her CV and he earns so much money at that stage it’s hard to justify going to work for money that would be negligible in the context of the family finances
I should have stated that my view don't apply to those who indeed move away every few years, as indeed, this is the one instance when I can see that pursuing your career would be definitely challenged. However, these are exceptional cases and I'm still to read one thread when this is mentioned as the reason why the SAHM never went back to work.

Someone said that legally it isn't shared money. I think it is between married couples, nothing to do with where the employer puts it in the first instance; spouse has a claim. But the claim can be made difficult if the earner wants to be obstructive.

No it is not shared money legally, in case of divorce then usually assets are shared 50/50 regardless of who has paid what, but in terms of a wage, the spouse has zero legal recourse.

I'm not pointing this out for any other reason than I think there is a lot of misinformation out there, and that's not helpful as people can't make informed decisions if they don't know what's what.

Why do you assume SAHM gave up their careers against their will?!
I don't that's my point, but that's what some posters say, not that they were threatened to stop, but they claiming that they had no choice because of x, y and z, when these reasons are overcome by many working parents.

I don't think I had no choice but at the same time DH is the only one in the group of 12 or so working at his level in the company who is married with a young family. The others, both male and female are either childfree, divorced or married but with grown up children.
Now, me working wouldn't be an issue we could pay for whatever help we needed, but when he first committed paying for childcare just wasn't in our budget.

Why do you assume SAHM gave up their careers against their will?!
I don't that's my point, but that's what some posters say, not that they were threatened to stop, but they claiming that they had no choice because of x, y and z, when these reasons are overcome by many working parents.

Perhaps it’s because any other reason is seen as insulting to working mums so it’s kinder to use this line of reasoning.