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?!

@TempleofZoom
I have put a lot of money into the house, etc without working (I’m very lucky), I know I would be fine if our relationship went tits up. It’s not that point on view that is my issue, it’s that people don’t leave it at that but keep going on trying to convince the SAHM otherwise…

@intothewoodss
Life insurance for the both of us…if I pop my clogs then DH is left with the childcare bill of £3k a month…I should probably be insured for more than him thinking about it 🤔

I have contributed to the circumstances of our life that enabled him to have both the family life he wanted and the job he loves.

Where are your wishes and desires in all this @Mummyford? It was an interesting post with lots of food for thought but all I read was that you supported his post grad, move overseas, return etc etc. Where are you in all this?

Something I have noticed is that in all the couples I’ve known whose relationships have not just gone wrong, but ended with huge amounts of bitterness and anger and misery for everyone concerned, the one thing they all have in common is that there were significant levels of disparity in income/assets/perceived contributions.

This is spot on.

It's true that no-one should have to live their life in a constant state of fear over their marriage breaking down and you can't always act as if your marriage is going to fail.

But lack of parity in contribution is something which very quickly breeds resentment. Whether its a man not pulling his weight with childcare or a woman refusing to seek work after her children have left home. A lot of relationships deteriorate when one party feels they are carrying the other.

This isn't a reason to stay in a job you hate or to rush back to work if you don't have to.

But I think as a general principle having no practical way to support yourself without your partner when you have children is a precarious position to put yourself in. While it isn't always straightforward to turn this around, shouldn't all couples be seeking, as far as possible, to make sure that their situation doesn't breed resentment?

intothewoodss - I wonder the same thing about families with “separate finances.” How does this translate into actual life. Say the mum earns £40k but the dad £400k. Does the mum on £40k say, “Sorry kids, I can’t afford my share of the mortgage / holidays / lifestyle your dad can. So we can’t do any of that.” Foes she just live like a second-class citizen in her own home in front of her identity children, while the DH hoards “his” money and spends it on himself?

In such circumstances, surely the mortgage that family are eligible for would be based on their joint salary of £440k. So if a woman on £40k is living in a house way more expensive than anything she could have afforded without her husband’s income, would certain posters also consider that mum to be “living off a man” even though she is working?

For most women who are married, your lifestyle is determined by a dual income. Fine if your incomes are broadly similar, I guess. But if one income is significantly higher than the other (as happens more often than not) then surely your home and lifestyle are, to a greater or lesser extent, subsidised by the higher income regardless of whether you are actually working or not?

“Identity children” . Sorry that should read “own children.”

But if one income is significantly higher than the other (as happens more often than not) then surely your home and lifestyle are, to a greater or lesser extent, subsidised by the higher income regardless of whether you are actually working or not?

Yes of course. And you see this all the time: women taking jobs in the arts or whatever because they are "fun" or "interesting" or doing something socially useful for low paid because their husband is killing himself working for a bank or law firm.

I still think, though, that having that £40k salary is important because if the shit really hits the fan and he moves his ill gotten gains to the Caymans overnight you can still pay for a deposit for a flat etc.

I imagine that if you married the kind of tight penny counter who can't share family money without resentful hissy fits about keeping things "even" and who devalues your contribution to the household outside of monetary terms, then it's best to keep your wits about you and stay in work.

So perhaps the concern for sahms comes from a genuine worry for their future well being. But in life we all pick our own paths and they each bring thier own risk. So long as those decisions are within the bounds of the law then usually we shrug our shoulders and simply let each other get on with our own decisions and risks.

I've never known anyone who actually enjoys their own job and work/life balance give two hoots if someone is sahp or not. I certainly don't so forgive me if I think this envy dressed up as concern.

But if you lived in an expensive area that was driven by his salary thepeopleversuswork, you may find you won’t get a mortgage on your £40k. You would just have to rent. It’s all very well saying, “well just take the kids and move to a cheaper area,” but what if his salary was paying for school fees and the children are settled there and doing brilliantly?

I’m just saying, how you fare in the event of divorce is far more than a question of income.

Far more relevant is whether you own your home; how much is your home worth; how much debt the family is in; what is the value of the family assets - so many factors basically? But, as a SAHM, you are not basing your security in his income. You are basing it on the value of your shared assets. The difference is crucial.

@cosima8

Of course. And it would be horrific having to upend your children’s lives etc if that happened. Not minimising this.

But I still think you’re better off with the £40k salary (or even £20k salary) than without it.

On the whole money isnt/is legally shared money. Its not a simple answer, really is it?

When a wage goes to someone it's their money. They may choose to share it. Have it paid into or move over to an account accessible for both. As long as both people (regardless of who is working and who isnt) see it as shared, it is.

However, the second one person decides not to make their wage accessible to the other, there no legal obligation for them to do so. In the event of divorce, assets and money will be split. But that doesn't mean the person's wage has to be accessible to the other person until the divorce.

You could have a family where both people work. One 100k one 40k. They have always shared. The higher earner decides they will cover the bills (or their usual portion) but not keep the rest. There isn't much the other can do but decide wether they want to divorce/split. or only cover half the bills. Or lots of different things.

In the event of a split the divorce can go several ways, especially if one is a high earner. But often the house would be sold if the lower earner, can't afford the mortgage. But not always.

On the point about it being exhausting to think about what happens when you split. It's not really. You think about it when big decisions are being made. Such as house purchases, investments, wether to have more children. Its no more exhausting than than planning for one person's death or illness.

I am a higher earner, who doesn't really share money. But we aren't a wohp/ sahp set up. I pay a bigger portion of bills, pay more money to the joint. Then what's left over is mine.

Difference is I refuse to marry because I don't wish to financially tie myself to someone. We don't have joint children.

During the pandemic when dp was made redundant, I paid all the bills made sure do had the free money that he would normally. We tried a joint account but he hated dipping into it. He didn't really like me transferring it either. Because he doesn't want to share finances either. The house is mine and when dp moved in he kept the ones from his house and invests it, so if we split and he needs to rehouse himself he can.

In the event of my death, he also gets a pay out. But all my personal assets go to my kids.

Holidays, eating our etc arent really an issue because we don't have extravagant tastes. One or the other pays. I have put more into holidays when I have wanted to upgrade flights or rooms.

I will be supporting my dd and my ds through uni soon, alongside them working. Dp obviously won't be contributing to that.

It suits us. We enjoy life. And I know if dp leaves tomorrow, all the bills will be paid and we will be fine. My priority is always going to be my children. Not DP.

Though in some splits, the higher earner often sees it as paying to their ex. Rather than paying for the children. And that's where problems arise.

@Katedanielshasakitty

Your setup sounds similar to mine except I don’t live with my DP. I feel much more comfortable organising it like this.

Shared finances and marriage would scare me witless tbh. Too much to lose

I certainly don't so forgive me if I think this envy dressed up as concern.

Its really not. This is a thread about how mn feels about sahms so people are going to share that. If someone asked me in real life, do I dislike sahms my response would be 'don't be daft its up them'.

However, if friend said she was going to be a sahm I would be very supportive. If she asked my opinion, I would tell her she needs to do what's best for her family. But mention also advise my concerns about earnings, what if a split happens etc.

On mn people are asking what people think. So people are saying.

I also had the same cinevrstation with my brother before he became a sahd. Because he asked. His wife, also a friend, also asked me and I reminded her in the event of a split it was likely my dbro would get the children more of the time. And it was something she needed to think about. I would have volunteered that opinion, had it not been asked for by people who really wanted my opinion.

There's pit falls to both pointing that out doesn't mean people are envious.

There's pit falls to both pointing that out doesn't mean people are envious.

Exactly!

I still think, though, that having that £40k salary is important because if the shit really hits the fan and he moves his ill gotten gains to the Caymans overnight you can still pay for a deposit for a flat etc.
I have a house in my name, and half of all our savings in my name. He can't move those anywhere.

Judgemental, and a bit patronising, then?

it sounds exhausting having to think like that all the time

We must have very different views on what is ‘exhausting’.

What do you really think is more exhausting?

1. taking a few extra seconds to make decisions based on two possible future outcomes instead of just one.

2. saving those extra few seconds by not thinking about the possibility of future breakup and then having to start working in a low paid or unskilled role to build back up after a 4-5 year career break as a sahp, sometimes it maybe for a few years whilst you find you feet again.

It suits us. We enjoy life. And I know if dp leaves tomorrow, all the bills will be paid and we will be fine. My priority is always going to be my children. Not DP.
Your situation isn't comparable if you don't have joint children though.

I think this envy dressed up as concern.

This is lazy thinking at best. But given how many reasons people have given for preferring to work even if they don't NEED to, like me, it looks more like no thinking at all.

@DoubleTweenQueen

Judgemental, and a bit patronising, then?

Depends on where you are sitting 😁

Though in seriousness, if I posted I marry marry dp and, for whatever reason, posted my circumstances and someone pointed out the risk, ie if we got divorced it would cost me a fortune.

I would think they were envious, judgemental or patronising. Because it would be a real risk.

But tbf, God herself couldn't drag me down that aisle again 🤣

@FTEngineerM
It’s not just a few seconds though, is it?
Some people have everything split - bills, mortgage, childcare, food, etc.

Then what happens if someone has a salary increase? Is this contribution pro-rata so their half is more?

I can see people want a “back up plan” but some people said they can’t commit to somebody because they have too much to lose financially, independence, etc. It must be hard having to pragmatically weigh your options up like that.

Really, marriage makes zero sense practically but I still don’t regret doing it. I hope people aren’t thinking so much with their heads that they forget about the heart too.

@mafted

It suits us. We enjoy life. And I know if dp leaves tomorrow, all the bills will be paid and we will be fine. My priority is always going to be my children. Not DP. Your situation isn't comparable if you don't have joint children though.

Which I pointed out at the top.

It was reference to how people share money.

I commented because many families - even those with a SAHP - are able to consider risk and make some provision.
Clearly not those on the MN boards who find themselves in straits - but that can also happen to WOHP when their career gets pulled from under them at a highly inopportune time
That also occurs. We all need to have reserves/a Plan B.

[quote SAHMavectwinnies]@FTEngineerM
It’s not just a few seconds though, is it?
Some people have everything split - bills, mortgage, childcare, food, etc.

Then what happens if someone has a salary increase? Is this contribution pro-rata so their half is more?

I can see people want a “back up plan” but some people said they can’t commit to somebody because they have too much to lose financially, independence, etc. It must be hard having to pragmatically weigh your options up like that.

Really, marriage makes zero sense practically but I still don’t regret doing it. I hope people aren’t thinking so much with their heads that they forget about the heart too.[/quote]
It not hard living pragmatically at all. I find it's actually easier.

I don't make decisions based on my children's financial future based on my heart. Financially, they only have me that they can absolutely depend on, financially.

I can love dp, live with him and build a life with him I don't HAVE to marry him for those things. That's where I make decisions with my heart. With mine and my children's future, they are made with my head.

Marriage is a legal contract at its core.

Protecting yourself takes a few extra seconds per decision, what ever action you need to take because of that depends of course so yes you’re probably right in some respects @SAHMavectwinnies

But yes that’s exactly how people do it, add everything up and split it, the percentage can depend on whatever they like. My example above doesn’t necessarily compare a working parent and sahp it just compares someone who has thought about the future and someone who hasn’t. Both could be sahp. If someone is the sahp then presumably they still have free money to do as they please with, whether that be in joint or not. They could transfer some into personal savings or make sure that everything is in joint name bill wise/loans/credit cards ensuring that if they did break up they’re not left with a shit credit rating because they haven’t technically taken out credit in a decade.

Things in my own life I thought of when making that comment.. me and DP aren’t married, he saved an absolute wedge by not spending any of his promotion over several months and wanted to put it in my savings account because I had an easy access one with my savings in it from my dad for our wedding. I said no, not because I wanted to be difficult but.. just imagine I’d died and him trying to explain that more than 0.75 of the money in there was his to my family. Yeah right. It takes a few seconds to open a savings account and have his own personal money in his own account. It would be the same for an unmarried sahp partner with no access to joint money, it just feels vulnerable even if the other partner is the nicest in the world. Things can and do change.

I’m not so sure everyone understands the implications of marriage too though; ‘it’s just a piece of paper’ gets thrown around a lot and that piece of paper can become very expensive.

@DrSbaitso

I think this envy dressed up as concern.

This is lazy thinking at best. But given how many reasons people have given for preferring to work even if they don't NEED to, like me, it looks more like no thinking at all.

So do you spend much time wringing your hands in concern for all those people who live differently to you - those who live with a different level of risk or a different lifestyle?

And if not, what motivates you to take such a superior tone over how other women chose to spend time differently to you?

If it's not envy - is it just one of those shitty superiority complexes where any axis of difference is another opportunity for self congratulation?