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?!

[mnistooaddictive]

I was SAHM for 6.5 years and never found mumsnet negative. It was my choice and I enjoyed it. I am a little surprised by people who describe themselves as SAHM when their children are over 12. That’s their choice obviously, but it’s a different role to having pre school children full time at home.

[OnlyFoolsnMothers]

Studies have shown women don’t earn less than men until they have children.
What gets me is why it’s so taboo to say “I want to be a SAHM”- all this justification- there’s pros and cons to both working and non working and to part time working.

[Treacletoots]

@ChristmasShearwater If the female hairdresser can support themselves and their child if need be then absolutely why not. I know plenty of hairdressers who make a good income. My issue is where people don't earn enough to keep themselves and a child and expect to give up work and their partner to support them. It's not like you don't know it's expensive to have children, surely?

[PluggingAway]

I think in real life most people don't really give a shit how other families get on. Internet forums make seem much more intense and polarised than they really are.

I'm a SAHM and most of my friends work. We all get on just fine.

[crinklyfoil]

My best friend is now a SAHM to school age children. She was a primary school teacher who went back part time after having her second child but she was so horribly bullied by the head in the end it was having a detrimental effect on the whole family and she left.

I’m sure there are periods of the day when she won’t do much as both kids will be at school in September but she’s happy. She doesn’t need to ask her husband for money because he works sometimes and has some rest time, she works sometimes and has some rest time. They both pay bills and for things for the children and share what is left. Because they are a team.

[tootingbeclido]

@OnlyFoolsnMothers

Studies have shown women don’t earn less than men until they have children.
What gets me is why it’s so taboo to say “I want to be a SAHM”- all this justification- there’s pros and cons to both working and non working and to part time working.

What studies are these then?

[AuntieStella]

I think it’s true there is an element of jealousy

It's really not, you know. Been there, done both, got the tshirts.

Thinking there's jealousy, or other bad motives, is only going to stoke division. And from the perspective of those who have moved in and out of different patterns, with DC at different ages, it all too easily looks faintly ridiculous.

[Redruby2020]

@OnlyFoolsnMothers

No issue with whether a woman works or doesn’t but two things that piss me off:

1- “my partner works because he earns more”....always men who earn more

2- childcare will take all my wage- nope it’s a joint expense

Just say, I want to be a SAHM, that’s the truth and that’s ok.

But what if you are separated? Then all I hear is 'well I had 3 and was a single parent, worked full time and bought my home' where tf did that person but it and how on earth did they work full time and do it on their own, and yes, I'm talking about them saying they had no one!

Childcare costs can't be shared if your partner at the time and then when separated, does not want to pay!

I don't work because my rent is £1300 a month, and my pay would be £1200 maximum, so how on earth do I pay my rent, my bills, for food.

[crinklyfoil]

Why is it an issue @Treacletoots

I’m not being goady but seriously do you mean care workers, Tesco checkout staff, librarians, shouldn’t have children?

[AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken]

There’s very thinly veiled disdain on both sides of the argument.

I’ve been a SAHM for the best part of five years. When COVID put the brakes on my husband’s business I got a job really easily and went back to work for a year. Now he’s opened back up I’m looking after the kids again.

We made a joint decision that we don’t want them in childcare.

When I gave birth to our first child, he signed a percentage of his business over to me. I do a few hours a week for the business.

We’re happy. I feel safe.

I don’t care for anyone else’s opinion. Especially strangers on the internet.

[TedMullins]

It’s not a free choice when it’s made in the context of a society that expects women to make all the sacrifices when she’s a parent. If there was more societal and state support aimed at early years parents for mothers and fathers, and both had equal opportunities to SAH or go part time (like in Scandinavia for eg) then maybe you could say it was a free choice. But it’s very much still expected a woman will be the one to step back when kids come along. So all the “it made sense for it to be me/he earns more/we can’t afford childcare” comments may be true but that’s because that’s what society basically forces on couples with children. Not that women are forced to SAH, but that it will always seem like the “logical” choice for women to do it.

Personally I think it’s important to retain financial independence/your own wage for many reasons, even if your partner’s a millionaire. It sets a better example to kids

[grey12]

childcare will take all my wage- nope it’s a joint expense

The idea is that the financial benefit of the mother working will be offset by the childcare expenses

In my personal case, I don't have a nice career, and at the time ended up as a SAHM (I was unemployed). If I went back to work I would still have no nice career, would be more stressed, and would be burying my money for someone else to be with my small children/baby.

On the other hand, a friend of mine has a good career and ended up taking very little maternity leave. And that's ok. She's doing great. Baby is perfectly fine! And so are we

[FakeColinCaterpillar]

Lots of posters don’t understand jobs aren’t career jobs, pay won’t improve over time. You might be able to move and earn and tiny bit more but they aren’t a long term investment.

Lots of posters live places where there are lots of varied childcare available. I have read so many posts where people talk about summer bloody clubs. It’s not a standard offering everywhere.

[Treacletoots]

No. What I'm saying is that people shouldn't expect their partner to bear the sole financial responsibility for having children. And that women should stop perpetuating the patriarchal system by assuming they are the ones to give up their careers.

[Bluntness100]

So yes if mum pays for half the childcare she’s still making £750 ‘profit’ but a relationship shouldn’t really work like that. It still means that the family unit operates at a loss

It’s not a loss.it’S just a cost like the mortgage or rent, except it declines quickly

I think you’re just over sensitive.

[AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken]

I’ve also done a few courses (including an MA) while I was a SAHM. More as a hobby to keep my mind sharp but that helped my employability when the shit hit the fan.

[Tumbleweed101]

It’s interesting how times have moved on. I have adult children and back when they were small the benefit system allowed a single mother to stay at home until the child was 12yo before they had the push to return to work. It seemed that SAHM were far more of a normal thing in general at that time. Now the single parents are pushed to return to work when a child is just 3yo and general society view seems to be that women should return to work ASAP after having children so they are ‘contributing’.

I’ve had a mix of SAH and working with small children and there are definitely pro and cons to both and not just financial. Ultimately I think it depends on what you get out of your job. If you enjoy it and have good colleagues and see progression it’s very different to being somewhere you hate and feeling there is little to no benefit to your household financially.

My choices were abruptly cut short when my youngest was 2yo as I became a single parent then and had to work but I did enjoy being a SAHM for a while when my eldest two were small.

[Queynte13]

@Ooodlesofboodles

I've never seen sahm criticised on mumsnet. Only concern that they are married and have their pensions sorted.

I agree with this.

[HavelockVetinari]

Posters claiming to have never seen prejudice against SAHMs on MN are being extremely selective in their viewing and recall

I've never been a SAHM, but I have noticed a lot of snide comments directed at them - suggesting they'd be screwed if they split up from their spouse (I don't mean DP - unmarried women shouldn't SAH unless they're independently wealthy or have joint assets), or that they're setting a bad example for their children, that they are boring and insular, that they're lazy...etc.

A lot of it stems from jealousy - many parents would love to stay at home and resend having to work, so they convince themselves that they're somehow morally superior for going out to work.

For others they're unable to understand that not everyone is like them - not everyone wants a career.

With regards to childcare taking up all a SAHM's wage - yes there is some short-termism there amongst some SAHMs, as children are small for such a short time, and in that time they'd still be earning pension, as well as the possibility of progression. However, it's insulting to imply that none of these women are aware of the downsides. Some of them undoubtedly don't think it through, but for others it's a calculated choice to stay at home.

Essentially - people can be very rude about SAHMs, and often are just jealous or lacking empathy. Or are just nasty fuckers who love nothing more than to give someone else a kicking, protected by anonymity.

[Bagelsandbrie]

I think it’s a much bigger issue - people not understanding / respecting that not everyone places their value and sense of self worth in paid employment. I’ve experienced judgement as someone who for various reasons (disability and finances) has either not worked or chose to work very part time hours. People actually glaze over when they talk to you as if you can’t possibly have anything interesting to add. It’s really narrow minded and tedious and tips over into the whole SAHM thing.

[Mrs08]

It is interesting.

Some people are adamant that being a sahp is not a "job"....and yet pay others to care for their dc whilst they work outside of the home.

If you have to pay someone to do it, it's a job.

[Ghosttile]

’a relationship shouldn’t really work like that. It still means that the family unit operates at a loss’

Have you read some of the threads on here where women on maternity leave have saved up when they were still working so they can keep on contributing their half of the bills? Not every couple has truly joint finances. A gap of several years in work has lasting consequences. It means a lack of career progression, lack of pension contributions and a lack of recent work experience which makes it harder to get back into the job market.

There’s also the fact that if the relationship fails, it’s likely to be the mother who has the children for the majority of the time. So she’ll be looking for work that fits in with school hours and those childcare costs will be solely her problem. If the couple aren’t married when they split the only financial contribution the father has to make is the CSA calculated amount.

I completely understand the desire to be a SAHM. It’s a totally valid choice. If it’s done for financial reasons it benefits the joint finances at the expense of the woman’s individual earning potential. It can also have consequences in the balance of the relationship. There are too many threads on here where women are treated as ‘lesser’ by their partners for not contributing financially because they’re SAHMs. Threads where they get resentment from their partner because they’ve asked them to look after the DC on their own for an hour or two over the weekend so they can have a break. If there is a joint decision made that the mother will stay at home then that mother should have the respect and financial support of her partner and not be treated as a skivvy.

[Mrs08]

I'd say it's more common to find those views from those who do not have to pay for childcare...those whose dc are cared for by family for example.

[thelegohooverer]

It’s easy to look at the cost of childcare against family income streams and conclude that being a sahm makes sense. But there are other calculations to bear in mind too.

Like the financial cost that a woman (not a family) bears by taking years out of the workplace. Keeping a hand in makes long term financial sense even if it’s painful in the short term.

Like the emotional, psychological and social costs of being a sahm. It can be brutal and mh problems make it all the more difficult to get back to work if it doesn’t work out.

Like the massive power imbalance that creeps into the very best relationships when one person relinquishes their earning power and becomes dependent on another. At best it’s uncomfortable, at worst it’s a wide open door to abuse.

In the short term staying home with dc seems to be an excellent choice for them - all their needs met by the person who loves and cares for them most. But in the long term, without solid protections in place, it can plunge dc into poverty, and damage their long term prospects if the family unit collapses. Being a sahm without being married is a game of Russian roulette.

On a micro level, having a sahm can be a beneficial arrangement for families but on a macro level it perpetuates inequality. In senior management roles, a married 50 year old man with dc is far more likely to have a sahm to his back doing school runs, sick days, laundry and cooking. A married 50 year old woman with dc working the same job is far more likely to be juggling childcare and housework. Men with sahms have a huge career advantage over men with working wives who have to pull their weight at home.
So what can be financially beneficial to the individual families is disadvantageous to workplace equality.

We should live in a society where putting the needs of small dc first doesn’t come with a cost but we haven’t come close to achieving that. Feminism has achieved incredible gains in basic human rights for women but it’s only the beginning. Until traditional female labour like nursing, caring and childcare achieve social status, we’re only halfway there.

There are lots of reasons women who work outside the home resent sahms - it’s not easy to separate from a baby and relinquish their care to strangers. Seeing others that don’t have to do that creates a cognitive dissonance that has to be satisfied. It’s primal and it creates tension and discord among women. Meanwhile we don’t get even the tiniest of concessions to our human rights without it being fought hard for by a minority of brave and clever women who see further than most.

Some of the disapproval of sahms comes from a place of sharing wisdom, some is buried resentment and some is just basic trolling.

[WoodPell]

I always laugh at the raising-their-own-kids comments. I work 3 days a week and I am certainly run ragged enough on the other 4 to feel we're "raising" DS.

I'm another one who is surprised when SAHM say that childcare for one is their whole wage, outside London. Our nursery FT is about £900 a month with tax free childcare (£11kish) which would be a really low full time salary (35 hours per week at £9 is £16,380).