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)

@AccessibleVoid

98% (I think) of sahms are women.

I'm not sure it matters how rare it is.

A fairly recent survey of 18 to 34 you found that a majority of respondents (male and female) though that mothers of children under 3 shouldn't work

Women are, in the vast majority, the ones to give up work and go part time.

I dont think its ok to encourage the societal influences that make that happen.

Men should be as willing as women to look after their own fucking kids.

I actually don't find the Guardian article that far from the truth.

I know one women who basically flat out refused to go back to work after their last child. He objected, wanted her to continue working, but he had no say in the matter.

Another man I know recently told my husband that 'he fucking hated his job'. His wife has recently become a SAHM. I'm sure he would much prefer for them both to work part-time but that wasn't an option.

So so so many women I know don't work and I always think, another one bites the dust. I can't help but feeling scornful towards them.

@mijas

Not me personally no but I'm sure the ONS have.

The vast majority of people in the UK aren't wealthy.

Total aside but this graph is interesting because women with dependent children and men without dependent children have similar employment rates vs much higher rates for men with dependent children. It almost seems like the high rate for men with children is more a sign of men who are responsible enough to stick around for their kids or share custody are also more likely to have work. Women even if they're irresponsible slatterns (like me) don't really have the same options to dump their kids on a partner and then go galavanting into some shitty bedsit to waste away their life on "sessions" before dying of liver disease in their 50s.

That's the real aspiration we women are missing out on! How do we close the gap??

Yes 25-35% of women not working at any one time is the rough figure I've seen quoted. And there will be all kinds of demographics included in that obviously - including women at both extremes of the economic spectrum and women who work part/time or in temporary contracts. Which is why I don't understand how anyone in MN can talk about SAHMs as a homogenous group. It's baffling.

And sure enough, someone on here who is not a SAHM has taken it upon herself to define what a SAHM is.

Imagine if I went in a thread - "Er sorry no - you're not a WOHM. No you don't work enough hours. Also I deem the content of what you do doesn't fit my criteria. Therefore you are sexist. Glad I could enlighten you with this burning issue. Thankyou. '

@mijas

Am I not allowed my own opinion, lol?

Do I have to agree with you?

You're perfectly free to define what you think a working parent is if you want?

People do say that to people. I think its reasonable to say that if someone is going to be defined as a SAHM their primary reason for not working is in order to provide childcare that would be otherwise inconvenient or expensive. If they're spending 8hrs a day looking for work while their kid is still attending nursery they're not an SAHM, if they have a disability that impairs their ability or energy levels to work it won't be any easier to spend that time managing children and they will almost certainly be reliant on alternative childcare (if they weren't then when their benefits were reviewed they'd likely be deemed fit to work and lose them).

@mijas

seriously?!

you talked about how every sahm you know is perfect. Motivated, degree educated, volunteers, busy and with the exception of 1 (I think) has a perfect marriage with extremely ambitious and wealthy men.

Talk about homogeneous!

If someone is willing to let their partner sponge off them they can't act all resentful about it after the fact, they can always leave. I have way more contempt for the mopey men in these stories than the woman, she's getting to live a lifestyle of her choice on someone else's dime so good on her, he's the sap that's letting her.

Here most sahms I know have husbands who work abroad/off shore. I fell into it by accident because of postpartum psychosis. Demographically we're all well off. Many of them definitely won't go back to work. They volunteer, study etc.

My working mum friends fall into two distinct categories, professional jobs or low paid work. The former are married to people in similar careers and work because they want to. The latter seem more resentful and I think need the money.

Neither are homogeneous groups.

And that's the thing, if a man wants to spend his life living off a woman there's very few women (especially with children) who'd be ok with that even if it meant he picks up the kids from school and watches them til 6 or whatever. They'd leave and just manage on their own rather than deal with the financial burden. Women stay at home because they can because men will let them (even if they grumble about it). And as a woman I think it's great to have that option frankly.

@AccessibleVoid

Why should the option only available to women?

Shouldn't we be doing more to give men an equal go at not working?

Especially given (according to this thread) its so beneficial and desirable ?

I would be absolutely fine with more men having that option. I wouldn't want to lose the option myself though.

Your perspective seems to be unless it becomes socially unacceptable for anyone to not work then there can be no equality. I prefer the version of equality where we stop worshipping work and allow for a much broader variety of lifestyles.

Although realistically I think half the problem women have is that they care too much what other people think of them. A lot of problems could just be solved by saying "I don't care". People expecting you to do all the housework? "I don't care, do it yourself if its a big deal to you". People expecting you to take on the burden of earning/childcare "I don't care, if it matters to you, do it yourself". People expecting you to put ridiculous amounts of effort into your appearance "I don't care, fuck off if you don't want to look at me". So many of life's burdens and inequities can be solved with a well placed "I don't care".

@AccessibleVoid

Funny how work is always so worth while on these threads when it comes to unpaid work

How dare you not value the contributions of sahm, carers and volunteers!

Yet when discussing paid work its all of a sudden work is for mugs we're better of without it?

The contradiction is funny.

I dont care what people think of me personally. Really don't.

I thinks its daft to suggest that's the same as not caring about society or equality or politics

And its impossible for more men to have the option while so many women dont want to give it up.

Topgub. I did not say all the SAHMs I know are perfect. But, as I said, I am talking about a particular demographic. Yes they are all degree educated - well, I can't think of anyone who isn't. But so what? Why wouldn't they be? And yes, I can only think of one divorce in 20 years and that's the truth of it. And yes, they are all active, motivated women - again, why wouldn't they be? And they happen to be married to men who have been moderately to extremely successful (in the financial sense). That's the demographic in which you find most long-term SAHMs. Obviously it is, because if the families needed the extra income, the wives would be working wouldn't they? Many of them may also have been trailing spouses abroad at some point, or they are ex-pat.

There will be other SAHMs who have children with SEN. I suppose they're not feminist enough for you either? Never mind, they have more pressing concerns.

There will be women who don't work because they are better off on benefits. I'm sure you'd have a lot to say about them.

Then, there are women who have just taken a couple of years out while their kids are little. Hardly the crime of the century, is it?

So, basically all of the above are just people, living lives that are normal to them and most practical. Yet, you come on MN and you find you are "the SAHMs" - and you see there's this massive raging debate with people getting so worked up about the very concept of your lifestyle (while claiming they're not 'pressed' at all). Can you see how that would be a strange read?

There's actually a fundamental difference between the two. If you volunteer you're doing something you chose to do, that you personally value. When you are working for money, even if you have some degree of choice, ultimately you're doing it because you need the money. The number of people in paid employment doing the same things in the same way for the same amount of time they would do if they had genuine financial independence (enough passive income streams that they didn't need to work) is very very low. Ultimately work is where you spend your time, your energy, your health, the best years of your life, mostly making someone else rich (in the private sector).

And yeah I won't lie, I find that to be a mug's game. To give up the best hours and the best years of your life so that shareholders can see a return for nothing.

If you want to support a man to stay at home feel free. If I choose not to nothing is stopping you or any of the other 75% of working mothers doing so.

I'm all for a better work life balance for all workers and for society thinking its odd for parents of children up to secondary age to be working more than 30 hour weeks.

@mijas

Tbh the only person who seems worked up is you.

However I have to say the term trailing spouse (never heard it before either!) is giving me the boak

@AccessibleVoid

I dont work solely for the money or to make other people money.

My role definitely isn't a mugs game

Ok but we were talking about society not the circumstances of specific individuals right?

you want to support a man to stay at home feel free.

Absolutely* *not a chance.

But im other the one arguing howgreat being at home or not working is.

No you're the one arguing how no-one else should live their lives differently to you because it's somehow letting the side down.

As if people should think it was worthwhile to sacrifice their own lives for your abstract ideals.

@AccessibleVoid

The whole of society isn't in those roles either.

Lots of paid roles have value outside of money making.