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?!

They are probably just trolls

@FourTeaFallOut

Telling people they needed to get back to the office so they could have something to talk about and keep up with office politics and nuances

Yes, I remember that. One poster said that she didn't bother remaining friends with sahms because they don't have anything to talk about.

I'd put my head in a blender if all me and my friends talked about was work.

It may be the same poster that used to like telling people that because they were SAHP, there husbands were going to run off and have an affair, because you now have nothing to talk about.

So because you now don't spend the day at work, you have nothing to talk about with your husband, I mean, surely the least of your problems are the fact you are a SAHP, if your married relationship is based on you having a job to even communicate or have fun

And then if you do get made redundant or become unable to work, he gets the green light to cheat...... I mean come on, these among the majority of others are ridiculous

@Flossing

who won't see that the only axe around here is the one on her own shoulder, right next to the enormous chip. *@DrSbaitso*

Whilst this post was in response to a different poster I'm still pretty certain it's you who has the axe to grind.

I'm going to ask for a third time now. Why are you so invested in these threads? I've seen your name time and time again.

Some posters you can tell by the odd comment is relates to their own childhood. Not got any sense from you why you are so invested...other than you aren't "wel jell" of course 😂

If you see me on these posts it's because you are on them too. Sorry, I hadn't noticed you were trying to get my attention; I'm clearly not following as closely as, er, you are. Three times, you say?

"You're so invested" is as devastating a riposte as "ur just jealous lol". Oh, touché. Even if it were were true, how would it invalidate anything I've said?

But since you ask: I'm not, especially. I came on this one as I was following the thread that inspired it.

However, when I post, I do tend to make actual points and rebuttals rather than waffling about "investment" or "jealousy" or other empty non-arguments. Sometimes pisses people off until "well, you're on the thread that I'm on too, therefore I win!" is all they've got left. Case in point...

Oh, and while I respect people's choices and circumstances, I do think it's a real problem that so many women get financially fucked over when it was avoidable. So when someone attempts to play down this very real and common problem by insulting those who raise it, it does bother me a bit, especially since I've been on the breadline myself. I actually find it to be quite sinister and it makes me wonder who that person is, and why they don't want women talking about this very real issue.

I do spend too much time on MN, it’s true. The very first time I ever came on I was called a prostitute. At first it was a shock, but now I couldn’t care less. But I have to mention my all-time fave anti-SAHM poster. I can’t say the name but It’s that one who writes as if all her point were bullet points, but with loads of random full-stops. It’s hard to describe, but it would be like, “Man is working. economically viable. SAHM is defunct. No voice. SAHM not. economically. relevant. Man buys clothes on SAHMs back.” I do wonder about this one.

[quote AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken]@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 😉[/quote]
Thanks @AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken.

I was raised to believe that you show every single person respect, irrespective of their earning, perceived status or job role non of those things should solely drive your self worth or value.
That is non more certain in a partnership.

[quote imamule]@pinkfanman Also how does choosing to work despite not financially needing to make me less self aware than a SAHM who choses not to work because they don't financially need to? [/quote]
You don't understand how having a choice changes everything? Are you shitting me? You don't need to work...you work for interest... who cares what you do - you will be fine either way.

@rubbletrouble I wonder if that poster thinks that no working person has ever been cheated on. 🤔

@DrSbaitso yes I'm on those threads I explained why I am invested/interested in the topic. You haven't. You've just tried to shut me up by equating 'invested' with 'jealous', which are totally different ideas. I'm simply asking why you post so much on these threads? And you haven't answered properly. Instead you've tried to insult my intelligence by implying I'm not making valid points. The only point I was making is it's often the same people with anti sahm sentiment who post on these threads. You are a case in point.

No one is saying we shouldnt raise the issue of financial vulnerability. The posts made by various people have explained it's often written when not necessary or appropriate to the OP. No one is being sinister. But it fits your agenda (as it's very clear to me you have one) to raise this even at inappropriate times.

@pinkfanman what are you not understanding? I am aware I have choice like many SAHMs on this thread who have the same choice but choose differently. How does that make me any less self aware?

Or are you just jealous that I have the choice? 😆

Oh, and while I respect people's choices and circumstances, I do think it's a real problem that so many women get financially fucked over when it was avoidable. So when someone attempts to play down this very real and common problem by insulting those who raise it, it does bother me a bit, especially since I've been on the breadline myself. I actually find it to be quite sinister and it makes me wonder who that person is, and why they don't want women talking about this very real issue.

I'm not sure people are trying to down play the issue.

The issue is well recognised and ,much laboured on these threads, that there may be a risk in some cases in becoming a SAHP, people just then give their circumstance/opinions that maybe makes that a mute point for them, or they are quite happy to take that risk as spending those early years with their child well out weighs the risk for them or they don't see the value in working outside the home once children are around that others do?

@whatthejiggeries
Do you say that about nursery practitioners and childminders too…?

The people you have probably paid at some point to look after your own children.

[quote Katedanielshasakitty]@rubbletrouble I wonder if that poster thinks that no working person has ever been cheated on. 🤔[/quote]
I know but then you see them in another thread advising women to LTB for controlling their partners, while telling woman in here they have no right to household money, no right to have opinions valued if they are not employed, the hypocrisy is deafening and some posters. Can't even see themselves doing it.

[quote imamule]@pinkfanman what are you not understanding? I am aware I have choice like many SAHMs on this thread who have the same choice but choose differently. How does that make me any less self aware?

Or are you just jealous that I have the choice? 😆[/quote]
I'll leave you to ponder that one - you might need a bit of contemplative reflection...only a concerned suggestion of course!

Thought as much! And remember you don't need to be concerned about me at all but thank you 😜

I've stayed at home, worked part time and have worked full time for the last 16 years. Very lucky in that I earn a very good wage, that I love my work and that I've been able to chose (mostly) the hours I've worked and when.

Being a stay at home mum with young kids is really hard at times. Working and coming home to your kids is really hard at times.

My only concern for SAHM's comes from concerns that I've seen (and been) the aftermath when a relationship breaks down.

Being any type of mum is hard. Being heart broken, financially disadvantage and potentially homeless is harder.

Whatever you do, however you choose to raise your children please be mindful that things can change and in any eventuality, what sort of position will you be in ?

@rubbletrouble

Oh, and while I respect people's choices and circumstances, I do think it's a real problem that so many women get financially fucked over when it was avoidable. So when someone attempts to play down this very real and common problem by insulting those who raise it, it does bother me a bit, especially since I've been on the breadline myself. I actually find it to be quite sinister and it makes me wonder who that person is, and why they don't want women talking about this very real issue.

I'm not sure people are trying to down play the issue.

The issue is well recognised and ,much laboured on these threads, that there may be a risk in some cases in becoming a SAHP, people just then give their circumstance/opinions that maybe makes that a mute point for them, or they are quite happy to take that risk as spending those early years with their child well out weighs the risk for them or they don't see the value in working outside the home once children are around that others do?

You asked me a question (three times, apparently, so I presume you did really want an answer), I answered and you think I'm trying to shut you up?

And it was you who brought up the old "You're invested" chestnut, not me.

Yes, "You're jealous" and "You're on the thread" aren't arguments or rebuttals. So I will mention that when people insist on bringing them up.

I'm so bored of nonsensical non-points. Women's financial security is much more important.

I'm very glad when SAHPs have protection. They deserve it.

Unfortunately, women do get financially fucked over very often. I've been on the breadline and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. So while it may be very obvious to you how to protect yourself, there are a great many women to whom it is not. They're not stupid. But they've fallen for many of the same lines we've seen in this illuminating thread.

Some SAHPs who are not vulnerable get pissed off when it is suggested that not working may bring certain avoidable risks. I'm sorry if the truth offends you.

Still, I think that's preferable to attempting to invalidate the issue entirely by trying to dismiss everyone who thinks it's important as "just jealous" (Christ, what are we, 12? I demand a better class of playground insult.). I think women's security is actually an issue worth getting invested in, and I'm sceptical of those who don't.

I think, somewhere in your desire to tell me how wrong I am about everything, you've failed to read what I've actually said on here or, more specifically, what I've not said. Maybe go back and have a look.

Don't bother to @ me, though. I've got notifications turned off.

Haven’t seen any threads specifically calling out SAHMs ever on MN.

seen plenty of snotty comments but then we see all manner of shit on here - some of it ignorant and some of it just batshit crazy.

I can’t agree with you OP bc it’s not been my experience and anecdotally I haven’t heard or read about any targeted hate towards SAHM.

Of course as women or mothers we are constantly analysed and criticised for our choices. That’s parr for the course of being female I’m afraid. It’s not saved only for the stay at home ones.

Oh fuck, I quoted the wrong post. Sorry. Points stand. I'm not standing much longer though, I'm shattered.

In answer to the post I did quote: yay, you've factored the risk, you're happy with it, brilliant, your decision. Please allow us to address the other women who haven't thought it through the way you have without you telling us we must have the worst possible motives for it and, in so doing, downplaying the issue whether you intend it or not. It's not a personal attack to speak in general terms about a very common problem.

@DrSbaitso you quoted me incorrectly I believe.

“ Please allow us to address the other women who haven't thought it through”

But are there any women who are saying they haven’t thought through the financial implications of being a SAHM on this thread? I haven’t noticed any - quite the opposite actually.

In answer to the post I did quote: yay, you've factored the risk, you're happy with it, brilliant, your decision.
It is brilliant, thank you. Most women IRL do factor in the risk as well. On here there are obviously lots who haven't, but my no means the majority of the population. And then there are those who don't have a choice, and I'm sure they appreciate you labouring your point, again and again when they can't change their vulnerable situation.

Please allow us to address the other women who haven't thought it through the way you have without you telling us we must have the worst possible motives for it
Your point is irrelevant as soon as you lie about what I have said, again, I have never said one has bad motives. If I felt that, I would have said it, please don't read my quotes and interpret them with a deeper meaning you may be feeling.

and, in so doing, downplaying the issue whether you intend it or not. It's not a personal attack to speak in general terms about a very common problem.

I have never downplayed the issue of being financially vulnerable, again you are misquoting me, please stop.
It is absolutely not a personal attack to give general opinions, but I question the need for one to keep reiterating that point to people who have cleared heard you the 1st time, but are choosing to disagree with you. Is the point to try and change their minds ?

I'm not downplaying the financial vulnerabilities in women's lives. I am simply down playing it as an answer to the thread title question asking why posters are so unpleasant to sahms.

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.

But once you have two kids at private schools and a certain standard of life you can't really take a step back.

It's the naivety in some cases which is astonishing. The thought (upthread) that you might be able to access somebody's salary because you are married. No you can't.

@Viviennemary

It's the naivety in some cases which is astonishing. The thought (upthread) that you might be able to access somebody's salary because you are married. No you can't.

Not sure of the context of the discussion but If it got paid into a joint account you can.