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)

That doesn't make any sense, its not a moral question, its a question of self-interest. I don't care if people want to make choices that to me appear to be against their self-interest (like choosing to work in the private sector doing things they'd prefer not to be doing if they had the money out of a sense of social obligation or because it makes them feel insecure or guilty to rely on other people) - it's not my problem, it's theirs. If they wanted to they could choose otherwise, but obviously the emotional benefits for them trump having control over their own time. For me sacrificing autonomy for that seems dumb (and of course most people working don't have the choice one way or another - they actually need the money and have no other desirable options - slavery is only being a mug if you have a choice and pick slavery not if you just happen to be a slave).

No woman would refer to other women as "her indoors."

You sound distinctly like a man who has been fleeced in a divorce and is very bitter about it. Or maybe you can't get a wife, or something like that.

No woman could be this bothered about the existence of SAHMs. Something has to have happened to you.

I see you're on the other thread too with all guns blazing - about SAHMs again!

@mijas

Its an expression lol.

Not one id use but a mug who was paying for it all might.

No one can be this bothered that someone disagrees with them, surely?

No woman could be this bothered about the existence of SAHMs

Not sure I agree with that. One of my sil's takes it very personally that having two of my degrees funded by the tax payer, I'm not putting my "skills" to use in a role which pays tax.

@AccessibleVoid

No one has a free choice.

Generally speaking thats why we care what others do, because every choice impacts others.

I'm also, to quote Lauren, not bovvered by the existence of sahms.

I just like arguing

🤷‍♀️🤣

Well if you are not employed then yes, you are unemployed.

But that person is independently wealthy and needn't ever refer to himself as unemployed, even though yes, he is.

Others being effected doesn't take away choices, it's just one of the many consequences to consider when making them.

@AccessibleVoid

Depends on the choice i suppose.

None are free regardless

'Not one id use but a mug who was paying for it all might.'

Awright mate. Tell er indoors Im not a mug right and I'm off to the pub wiv me own wonga.

You don’t have a legal responsibility to provide care (or employ someone to provide care) for an elderly relative.

OK then@Topgub if someone has an elderly parent that needs care, has a full-time job, but could afford to give it up/cut their hours down to care for the parent, what would you suggest they do? Stick them in a home in order to continue pursuing this holy grail you seem to think full-time work is? They don't have a legal responsibility to care for them, after all... 🤔

I actually posted that you have taken it completely out of context.

Not sure what you are trying to achieve.

@mijas

Youre being a bit odd. I'm honestly not sure particularly what I've done to wind you up so much tbh.

@Mollymoo67

I didnt say that? Or anything about full time work being the holy grail

This being completely misquoted and represented is a bit annoying actually

@Wallaw

I genuinely don't find being a wp a struggle or difficult. I never have. I'm sure most men don't (joke!)

Parenting in general is another story. I massively struggle a lot of the time

But working isn't a factor

Apologies @Topgub! I'm still getting used to the quoting on here being different, and I somehow managed to misread.

@SinaraSmith my question was partly driven by the fact that I misread the quoting i.e. who had said what, so my apologies to you too for that, but I do still feel 'You don’t have a legal responsibility to provide care' carries an implication of it being somehow unnecessary to stay home and care for elderly relatives because there's no legal imperative and I'm still curious as to what point that observation was supposed to be making about elder care.

And, honestly, the intrinsic rewards of doing something substantial in the volunteer sector have not only been really fulfilling, but have opened my eyes to societal issues in ways work never did

I agree with that. Pre-covid I intended to retrain as a social worker inspired by the voluntary work I was doing.

Just saw another thread in AIBU now about a woman who is on maternity and has no money. The partner - AKA THE FATHER - gives her £500 per month, but no more and that's to buy all food for the family, all baby stuff and everything. He is telling her to get back to work and stop scrounging off him, basically. Meanwhile, he's off on a holiday with his friends and buying himself designer clothes.

@Topgub - presumably you would support the husband in this scenario. Separate finances all the way - go that man. You would argue he shouldn't have to fund "her indoors" like a "mug." You know, because "equality."

Yes, apparently this is the type of man that some women are aspiring to in 2022. Fathers and husbands who think "my money is my money" and seem under the impression that financially supporting your wife / partner and child has now become optional. This is the type of man society is creating and there are some posters on here who seem to have been brainwashed that being with a 'man' like this, with no integrity, is 'independence.' Frightening really. And tragic. It's as if things are going backwards and some women are so conditioned, to expect nothing from men, they don't feel they can rely on their husbands for anything. So depressing.

@mijas
Seriously, are you ok?

Why am I getting the blake for some random dickhead I know nothing about?

Of course In not blaming you for this random TopGub. I'm asking the question to you. Since yesterday, you have been claiming that women who rely in their husbands (financially) are hypocrites. You seem to be claiming the husbands should rightly resent supporting their families. You say women who are SAHMs are treating their husbands like a mug. Basically, your point seems to be that to be a feminist, you have to have a paid job and it's as simple as that.

So here is a man. His wife has HIS nine month old and has obviously had to take time out from her business as a result. Plus her business suffered during Covid and she's struggling to get it back to where it was with the responsibility of being a new mum.

This man sees his income as his and his only. He essentially gives her a fixed handout (which is not enough) and that's the end of it. He had no concept of family money and has told her if she wants more money, he's not giving it to her and she needs to earn it herself.

From all the things you have said on this thread, I would think you'd agree that this mum has no right to expect money from her husband. She needs to be earning her own money herself, now her baby is nine months old, because she is an unemployed scrounger whose emotional / physical / psychological needs are no different to his and all that matters now is that she should be 'equal' to him. To be 'equal' she must earn the same as him. Am I wrong?

I don't have a problem with women choosing to stay at home outside of paid work. But I agree with @Topgub that there's an unpleasant double standard you see on here applied to women who work sometimes from SAHMs who say things like: "Imagine how dull you must be if the only thing you can think of to do is work" or "work is such a boring thing to talk about".

I know SAHMs sometimes are on the receiving end of this with posts talking about how dull their lives must be etc. But please have the decency to realise its a great luxury to be able to choose not to work. I'm a single parent and if I don't work my daughter doesn't eat. It's as simple as that.

Given that I have to work, I choose to make sure my job is as remunerative and enjoyable as it can be. I take exception to the idea that this means I have a lack of imagination.

For those of us who have to work to keep food on the table and keep the lights on, being told airily by people who are supported by their partners that wanting to enjoy our jobs makes us "boring" is really pretty insulting.

I think your problem their @mijas is youre inability to read or comprehend what I've been saying or maybe even the context of the conversation I was having with @AccessibleVoid

I'm not sure if its unique to this site or not but it is a bit weird that you can say something and then have something completely different quoted back to you as fact.

But to answer your very odd question, no, I dont think a man should have to fund a sahm if he doesn't want to.

If I asked if women should be forced to work to fund a sahd you would would be outraged at the cruelty!

I know nothing about the individual couple you're talking about.

How did they split finances pre kid. What did they discuss pre kid? What was agreed?

Etc etc

'no, I dont think a man should have to fund a sahm if he doesn't want to.'

Well that's where we differ Topgub because he should absolutely 100% support the mother who can't work because she's looking after his child. He shouldn't need to be asked. He should be proud to do so and it's the least he can do, frankly. This is basic stuff. And if he can't grasp that, he is a disgrace and has no business having children.

@mijas

Why?

What about her?

Does the same not apply to her?

Why does she get to decide never to work and that he should just agree to that?

The least a dad can do is be an active, involved parent who will provide for his kid. .Not pay the mum to never work.

Same as the least a mum can do is be an active, involved parent who will provide for her kid

Are you saying that I’d a woman decides she wants to be a Sahm, her husband is a disgrace if he doesn’t agree to it and do it happily?

it’s a unlateral decision for mothers to make. The father has no input?

Well that's where we differ Topgub because he should absolutely 100% support the mother who can't work because she's looking after his child. He shouldn't need to be asked. He should be proud to do so and it's the least he can do, frankly. This is basic stuff. And if he can't grasp that, he is a disgrace and has no business having children.

Hmmm, so what if the father decides that he wants to SAHP and look after the child so the mother needs to work full time and support this?

What if she doesn’t want that? Is she a disgrace who has no business having children?