Why are people on here so pressed about the existence of SAHMs?

[DaffodilsandCoffee]

It’s fair enough to point out the existence of certain downsides are risks, but there seems to be so much spite and resentment on here. Why are some posters do angry at the existence of women who prefer to do all the childcare themselves rather than outsource some of it? Also, are they equally as angry at SAHDs? (I know it’s not as common but I personally know 3)

Sure, but a hundred of them? And only them to the extent you think this is “the reality of stay at home mums” and you believe this?

I'm not a SAHM. SAHM don't 'press' me. I clicked on the thread because I was interested in reading the different POV, particularly as this debate has been ongoing for 30 years since my DD was born, and i wanted to see what the 'modern' views were. Unfortunately, its the same old same old, with SAHM accusing working mums who are positive about their choices of jealousy. I commented because it wasn't the case 30 years ago and doubt it is now.

wow you know a hundred stay at home mums most of whom are married to self made millionaires with home help?

Those degree educated women must be going crazy? How much shopping at WholeFoods can a person do?

@mijas

You’re absolutely right, there are a lot of inequalities and the example of parents caring for children with special needs vs
others is a good one. It’s not realistic to impose an even playing field and equally it is not healthy to compare all the time.

On balance I am happy with my choices even if it is difficult and exhausting at times. To be honest I am probably a little jealous at times as well- I couldn’t give up work forever but having a few years away from work would be a lovely luxury (if I could do it without long term career consequences).

There is also some sensitivity about whether having two parents working full time is the best thing for children. It grates a bit when SAH parents talk about how their choices benefit their children. It’s difficult to hear that without worrying that having both parents working is not the best for kids.

Very honest of you to say your first few sentences. The answer to your last sentence is that most working women would be horrified at the prospect of being so financially dependent on a man. Jealous, not so much.

Who decided if it’s a net positive for the family though? I ended up as a SAHM because DH got an amazing offer to go and set up a satellite office in another country that we’d both always wanted to live in. It was brilliant for his career progression, but it meant sacrificing mine (at least for a while) as the industry I worked in at the time didn’t really exist in the city we’d be moving to, let alone my very niche job. We had a brilliant time there, and the flexibility we had from me not working meant we could do more travelling and have more adventures. We’re back in the UK now and I’m working again, and the experience DH gained means that he now has more seniority and flexibility, which makes it easier for me to work (we have 2 primary age children,1 with SN).

I suppose DH did gain an unfair advantage in that we were able to move abroad more easily than others. I’m not sure that was specifically down to him being a man or me being happy to quit my job though.

Very true. Women like to tell themselves that they are somehow supporting their husband’s career. It makes not a blind bit of difference to the men, they get on the career ladder just fine - woman at home or not.

@Rosebuud I'm saying it's the reality of the SAHMs I know - ie long term ones in this area. I'm not talking about women who take 2 of three years out and then return to work (which is far more common obviously).

And yes, I probably know more than a hundred SAHMs, to be honest. I've had 4 kids go through various prep schools and different senior schools in different year groups - so you meet everyone that way over the years. Then there's other women I meet doing the various things I'm involved in. If they weren't SAHMs, they wouldn't be around in the day, would they? We have lived in this part of London for twenty years and it's the sort of place where everyone kind of knows everyone. So I know a lot of other women who don't work, like me. Plus there's all the wives of DH's work associates over the years and he's involved in quite a lot - so we've made a lot of friends that way. Most of my street are families with SAHMs, come to think of it. People tend to meet other people with similar lifestyles to them - whatever they do.

@AmeliaEarhart

Of course there are always plenty of reasons why this suits individual families and fair enough.

But the claim that is often made on here is that SAHMs as a group benefit the family by enabling the husband to reach his financial potential. Clearly this is sometimes true in individual cases and obviously I wouldn’t judge anyone for making that choice if it suited them but I don’t see it as something which should be the guiding principle behind the family unit, let alone one which should underpin the logic of a woman sacrificing her economic independence.

And it isn’t a choice that happens in a social vacuum: it is unhelpful for those of us (like me) who strive to be treated equally with men but who struggle to achieve this because we can’t drop our caring responsibilities at no notice.

WarmWinterSun - well, you sound very balanced to me, so I'm sure your kids are too! No scenario in life is ever perfect. But, as you say, on balance you are happy with your choices so what more can you do? What more can any of us do?

I disagree with posters who say having a SAH partner doesn’t benefit the man’s career. It benefits them enormously. Many women burn out before they reach the top because they do not have sufficient support at home and become exhausted. Women start reducing their hours then dropping out before they reach their full career potential and the men get an easier ride to the top. It’s a huge problem in my industry and then everyone wonders why the pool of senior female candidates is so small.

@mijas
Thank you, well I do my best. ☺️

@mijas

Are you sure SW doesn't stand for Stepford Wives?

Id be hugely concerned on a societal level if almost every woman I knew didn't work and only men had careers or worked.

I wouldnt be accepting it as normal or teaching my kids it was normal.

Who wants equality?

Not SW London it would seem.

@WarmWinterSun

I've literally just typed this out upthread but I don't think anyone is arguing it doesn't benefit the man's career. What we're saying is that its of questionable benefit to the family and to society. Mainly because the perspective that a woman's role is to support the man's career tends to hold women back, both in terms of the individual woman's position in the family and her financial autonomy, and the knock-on effect for women in the economy more broadly.

That doesn't mean its not justifiable in individual cases. But holding it up as something for a woman to aspire to as a principle is regressive in my opinion.

a lot of it is jealousy but they will never admit and it and they will go out of their way to deny this is the case.
they will say things such as; I’m not jealous of someone being financially vulnerable or similar.

in reality; the vast manority of people work because they have to, not because they want to. If these people claiming they would never be a SAHM won £200 million on the lottery I doubt they’d continue to work in these jobs they claim to love to much.

Not having to rely financially on someone else is very important and a valid argument. You only have to read the hundreds of ‘he’s cheating/abusive but I can’t leave’ posts.

Your lottery argument relies on the fact that people who win would be a SAHP. When many would hire a nanny or send them to boarding school and jet set around the world. In fact I would say that SAHM do it because they have to and if they had the financial means they wouldn’t.

I think the uncomfortable thing is that a patriarchal society basically runs off the back of non paid and low paid work done by mostly women. Nursery workers, cleaners, school support staff who run the after school care, catering staff, carers. Hardly any will be paid a living wage, despite them being completely vital in the running of the economy. Women who come here claiming they are making some massive feminist leap by having a tip top full time career and not being able to understand why lots of other women can’t, well it’s a bit cringe. It’s like asking why everyone can’t get a well paying job. What’s the need for poor people? You’ve just joined the winning side. Without an army of low paid women (who may decide it doesn’t pay to work when their dc are young enough to need child care/wrap around care) you’d be stuck at home wiping your own kids arses. But they don’t like to thing about that.

There are some posters who are very literally saying it doesn’t benefit a man’s career! Even on this page!

I actually agree with what you say @Thepeopleversuswork. The problem is, as usual, separating the personal from the political and being able to discuss it without making or perceiving personal attacks. You can argue that SAHMs shouldn’t get so defensive about the wider societal implications of their choices being questioned, but equally we could do this without all the posts implying that SAHMs are lazy or boring or deserving of destitution when their husbands dump them.

I worry about how tired my children are on the days when they spend 10 hours at school and wrap-around-care, especially the autistic one who is masking for all that time. But it’s difficult to talk about without it becoming part of wider (probably controversial) debate about working parents and childcare. I’m probably cynical because of how long I’ve been in MN, but these discussions are rarely nuanced. Especially on AIBU.

Without an army of low paid women (who may decide it doesn’t pay to work when their dc are young enough to need child care/wrap around care) you’d be stuck at home wiping your own kids arses. But they don’t like to thing about that

This would make more sense directed at men - using either low paid or not paid at all women. Women do the vast majority of domestic tasks including wiping their kid’s arses.

Are you sure SW doesn't stand for Stepford Wives?

I can understand why some people may perceive it to be that way TopGub.

But ultimately, nobody is going to make their life (or their family's) harder than it needs to be are they? Man or woman. So, if that means a SAHM set up, so be it. If you're not suited to being a SAHM - well, don't be one.

@mijas

Why would anyone's life be harder?

Yes that’s sort of the point I was making. Men have always benefited from this. I find it ludicrous that women come on threads like this saying things like ‘why don’t women take the opportunities available to them, why don’t women get better educated and get a very important and well paid career like mine?’ If all women did this society wouldn’t function. Absolutely no recognition that working mums need those underpaid and usually overworked women as much as the next career man. There’s been a few very snobbish comments on this thread. I think it probably does show the MN demographic doesn’t reflect reality for most.

@DingleyDel

Men could do it instead?

Isnt that the point?

@Jedsnewstar my children are in school but during the long school holidays we do travel the world. I also have a cleaner so maybe I don’t fit your narrative of SAHM.
Not sure why you think some people have to be a SAHM? People who have financial means don’t have to work for a living; we therefore fall into the SAHM when we have children.

@Cameleongirl @mijas my circle matches the ones you know too.

Its not about functioning as a single person though, its about being a father and continuing with their career unimpeeded. Not all careers pay enough for out of hour nannies. You cant just go abroad for 12 weeks on a 40k a year job without expecting your partner to pick up all the slack.
Plus men who do their share at home do find their careers stall. My DH has had a lot of issues due to lack of flexibility when it clashes with my work commitments. Either of us would soar if someone picked up all the home stuff.