To think being a SAHM/housewife is not the same as someone claiming benefits?

[Jajana]

Was chatting to my sister and was talking about how my MIL is a housewife (sorry not sure if that’s the correct term). She said that being a SAHM/housewife is no different to someone claiming benefits and would rather claim benefits than rely on someone for an income!

Bearing in mind, FIL runs a very successful business and all of the money MIL receives is from private funds - not through the state.

Am i being reasonable to think being a SAHM/housewife isn’t the same as claiming benefits?

That’s just not always true. My dad divided his time between working in England and America. If my mum had worked full time (hospital doctor, so not hours that fitted in with regular childcare) then a nanny would have brought me, with boarding school once I was old enough. As my mum said, that wasn’t why she had children. My mum also went back to her career after her SAHP time and continued to progress. Without a doubt, she would tell you it was the best of both worlds.

@pinklavenders

You were talking about lots of women getting fulfillment from not working.

Why would that be?

Nope. Two high flying careers here. I'm not sure what you think they involve. It's not all taking clients to strip clubs til 2am, you know. We both work out of hours on top of our jobs, not every night, but some nights. I think you are imagining a very unusual scenario where both parents need to be out entertaining clients every single evening.

Very high flying here, thanks, and we live in a different country to family, so we just sort ourselves out between us and with paid help.

Some of you here sound so helpless.

I never get this argument, because for most people, everything comes out of one pot.

Say I went back to work.

I earned £1000 a month.

childcare was £1,100 a month.

It would all go in our main account, dh wage and mine. We could then argue until the cows came home how much of each persons wage went towards paying it, but the out come would be the same.

So it wouldn’t matter who’s wages paid for the childcare, we would still be £100 a month worse off.

I don't get it. Surely if you had a 9-5 job and used childcare during the day, this would have affected things 0%.

yeah I asked why and why more men don't feel the same

^Probably lots of reasons but maybe best to ask men directly?^

Because it is the shit end of the stick.

Because women are fooled into believing they are there to support men.

If women had the responsibility of earnings without home admin, cleaning, childcare, washing magically sorted, cupboard stocked they'd hop off to work, the women who do work are still responsible for home work making it easier to give up work.

Why? Because men have trained us to become the servant rather than masters.

@HandScreen all though this thread I have interacted with you with politeness and respect so I take exception to you calling me ridiculous for speaking about my experiences.

It's clear we live in very different worlds and have had very different experiences. My experience possibly dates back to a different time and I'm really hoping that your more positive experience of working is current as that means the working lives of women and especially mothers have improved beyond anything I could have imagined 20 years ago.

What I know is that the vast majority of the mums at my DC's pre and primary school were SAHMs and had worked in the City of London in great jobs before having DC. All were married to men in well paid jobs with long hours that took them away from home on business trips and events and prevented them from being very hands on with the kids. I do live in a very middle class affluent area and I get that my experiences are contained in a bit of a privileged bubble.

The few women who worked had full time Nannies and one still employs a Nanny even though her DC are now 17 , 16 and 12. She's actually a single parent now though.

Most of the mums went back to some kind of work once their DC reached senior school. The lucky ones managed to get back into their previous professions but many took local jobs just for something to keep them busy. Some retrained. Most were 5-10 years younger than me and and hadn't had a proper run at their careers before their children arrived so wanted to get back to it. I'd had 20 years of it and felt I'd proved myself already , especially as my years of working had left us financially very secure. I wasn't going to go back to work at a time when my DC needed me more than ever due to their various health and emotional issues.

I'm glad your working life as a mother is easy - honestly I am genuinely pleased for you because for many women it really isn't.

@LeeMucklowesCurtains

But people never say that do they? They say out of my wage.

Implying the costs is their's. Not their ohs or shared but their's alone because childcare is the womans responsibility

I personally would never want to be a SAHM. I never wanted to spend all of my time with my children. I was never one of those women who couldn’t go to work without crying because I couldn’t be apart from my kids. I’m shit at arts and crafts and tiny kid games so felt it would be better to pay someone who actually enjoys and is good at it to do it! I have maximum respect for women who can deal 2 year olds full time for more than 5 days in a row and not resort to cracking open booze at midday by day 3! It’s fucking hard!

I’m also not really bothered whether a stranger SAH because quite frankly I don’t give a shit about their finances, relationship balance or future earning potential. However, I do take issue with it when it directly impacts me and I think it’s this rather than jealousy which drives some of the negativity.

The impactful aspect is when women become long term SAHM to facilitate the careers of men. Facilitating presenteeism makes it harder for WOHP mainly women to rise to the top. If I’ve got to be at pick up by 6pm then come home and do dinner but Hugh is available all hours of the day then of course he appears to be more dedicated, given more opportunities and more likely to get promoted than me. If some men weren’t facilitated in this way, more people especially women, would get a fairer shot.

Nevertheless, I’m hopeful things are changing drastically now to lessen the chance of facilitation bearing fruit. Covid resulted in rapid technological change. People can attend conferences through hybrid working, there is no requirement to travel last minute as it’s quicker to convene a board meeting hybrid or fully remote. I can pick up my kids at 6pm and still attend a meeting being hosted in New York at 6.45pm. Last week I attended a conference by dialling into the first session, arriving and seeing the next two events live, staying for the networking lunch, leaving physical venue, dialling back in to the later sessions.

Most of the events and meetings which require travel are planned way in advance as we have busy diaries. If we require senior suppliers to come in at short notice, we arrange to see them on MS Teams, they don’t have to get on flights etc. To be honest I’m always a bit 🤔when I see people claim they can’t work as their DH often had to catch flights at a days notice. In my experience only junior people were expected to be driving all over prior to Covid. The senior people who were dealing with other senior people have PAs who have to juggle lots of prior appointments.

Also why do so many people claim to have given up careers in ‘the city’? What does this even mean? There are hundreds of different jobs in ‘the city’ ranging from cleaners and team admins to managers and CEOs. Why do they never just state the job title?

My dh works full time. I work part time my ds is disabled so we are entitled to benefits which supplement our income as ds needs me at home. People see benefits as a negative but what they are supposed to be about is equality. Support for those less able to earn to reduce the class gap.

Because it is the shit end of the stick.

See, many women don't see it that way. They actively enjoy staying at home and looking after the family and home.

Many men wouldn't enjoy that as much.

But there's no need to argue or judge others. There's no right or wrong!

It's not because if you are married you share property. So each family has to do what works for them.

YANBU. Staying home to look after children or run the house is something a couple will have discussed and agreed to. It should concern no-one but the people in the relationship. If someone is on benefits, they're taking from people outside the relationship, people who have no say in the matter. It's completely different.

Whatever you think of the wisdom, ethics, or societal benefit of one person choosing not to work while their spouse/partner does, it's absolutely not the same as taking money from random strangers who are legally obligated to pay taxes.

OP's MIL and others who don't work and don't claim benefits don't owe the world an explanation and don't have to justify their choices to people who are clearly jealous. It doesn't affect anyone outside their family, so no-one else has a legitimate reason to comment that they're lazy or foolish. If they've made a poor choice and end up in a tight spot, that's nothing to do with anyone else.

And if you apply for benefits and are granted them that's because you are entitled to them. The state has decided you are in need of financial help. It's like if you are ill you are entitled to NHS treatment in this country and how children are entitled to a free education in this country.

No one owes the general public an explanation.

Wow. A benefit bashing and SAHM bashing thread all in one!!

Staying home to look after children or run the house is something a couple will have discussed and agreed to. It should concern no-one but the people in the relationship.
If someone is on benefits, they're taking from people outside the relationship, people who have no say in the matter. It's completely different.

Yes. A couple sharing income and responsibilities is not asking the State for any financial help. They are working together to manage their joint income and expenses.

Very different from someone needing benefits from the State.

Also why do so many people claim to have given up careers in ‘the city’? What does this even mean? There are hundreds of different jobs in ‘the city’ ranging from cleaners and team admins to managers and CEOs. Why do they never just state the job title?

I think this!

They probably mean they gave up a well paid job in the financial industry. They chose to give up work to focus on their families and household. Perhaps that they made a sacrifice by doing so.

@Topgub I can’t speak for the other men but for my husband the answer is simple; because he didn’t want to. I did. He loves his work, it’s been his passion since he was a young teen.

I think it’s just because of the way it’s spoken about.

As it stands now, I would say it’s pointless going back to work because childcare would be more than ‘my wage’.

It doesn’t mean that me or dh would think paying for childcare is all my responsibility. It’s just that because it would be more than I earned, it comes down to the maths.

So I think when most women talk about it in terms of ‘my wage’, that’s all they mean, nothing more sinister than that.

No one on benefits owes anyone an explanation either. They haven't come and robbed you. You have been taxed by the government, and the government decides what that tax is spent on.

There's nothing wrong with getting help from the state when you need it.

@Louise0701

Your first post implied that you couldn't understand why anyone with your 'lifestyle' would continue* *to work.

But really you meant why would any woman continue to work when she could get a man to fund to keep working to fund the lifestyle?

I work because its my passion too. Dont need to be a man to be passionate about your career. Dont even need to be lifestyle motivated to be passionate about your career.

This week ?
Dd (15) needs a new passport she has already got photos done twice without a parent present which are unsuitable ( or we think they might be) . So now we have to either find time to go to the photobooth with her for an online application or go to a post office during it's opening hours (8:30-5:30) twive once to get the applivation form and then again for check and send, same with DS's driving liscence this time last year. Cars' MOT booking the bastard thing in time, then putting the car in, has to be a day when we don't need it. The laundry- actually the washing machine needs looking at- that is another working hours job. DH needs to make a GP appointment but cannot spend 1.5 hours on the phone between 8:30 &10 every morning to get through.

That's just off the top of my head.