To be shocked that in the 21st century there's still a staggering amount of women who rely entirely on their husbands?

[EllieRosesMammy]

I see it far too often on MN, women saying their husbands have been cheating on them for years or treating them absolutely terribly, but saying they can't leave because they are entirely financially dependent on their husbands.

Is it just me who finds this mad in 2022? Or is it still normal for men to be 100% the provider of the household?

I just couldn't imagine being stuck in a rubbish situation simply because of money

I am absolutely in no way slating stay at home mums, or house wives here either. I just believe all women should be self sufficient enough that if they're in a bad situation they can walk away

The type of men who specifically want a 'traditional' wife to be a SAHM are precisely the ones to be wary of.

Do I think ALL men who look for this are abusers who want to put a woman in a vulnerable position so she can't leave? No, not at all.

Do I think it's mental to pin all your hopes on your OH being one of the decent ones? Yes.

@pixie5121

You realise a lot of people who work in shops of various kind without fancy careers are perfectly content in life? You can be happy as a career woman, you can be happy as a SAHM and yes you can even be happy working in a supermarket.
Why are you so into this idea that all women must have “careers”? Hell most men don’t even have real careers.

They're content if they've chosen to do it. Not if they've been forced into it because their partner dumped them and they've got three kids to feed and no other way to support themselves.

You really think a SAHM who previously enjoyed a nice, middle class lifestyle seeing her friends for lunch, going to yoga and holidaying in Marbella is suddenly going to be happy with a minimum wage job in the Co-op and a week in a tent in Wales, if she can stretch to it?

Give over.

.
Yes there are obviously men who cheat on SAHM but to act like no one can possibly know is just false.

What do you mean there? You personally, at the beginning of a relationship, can predict what's going to happen long term?

Argh at ‘career woman’

A teacher is not going to buy a house in knightsbridge but she could probably afford to buy a house in watford with a regular salary and a sizeable settlement from ex husband. its better than not having any kind of a regular income and just relying on the settlement for the rest of your life. I have a friend who got 160k divorce monies from her ex husband and because of this, she cannot claim benefits. She was also made redundant from her part time job and has severe mental health issues. She is now homeless. She doesn't have kids but I realized from her how important it is to be financially independent. She would be in a very different situation if she earned 40k and was healthy; she could probably get a mortgage of 160k and together with the divorce monies of 160k, she could probably afford to buy a 1 bed flat in outer london. Thats a better situation to be in.

@pixie5121

Its got nothing to do with being some kind of mock 19th century woman if that’s what you mean by a “traditional” wife - it’s everything to do with women who want to be SAHM doing so and men who value this and find it complimentary to them (and vice versa) being attracted to those women. Do you not seek out a partner who is compatible with what you want out of life? If so then why do you trash women and men who do the same?

You make it sound like I’m saying men with SAHW want Amish women or something lol. I find your opinion on all this very far removed from the reality which I live and see in friends lives (and yeah even older couples marriages).

I think it’s silly to go into any relationship whether SAHM or not thinking your partner might abuse you - why the hell are you with them if you think that? Idk maybe when you are planning to be a SAHM you have a better radar for vetting these types because of the concentrated effort on what you want out of the relationship.

Its absolutely possible to know a man won’t abuse you or leave. No any man isn’t capable of it. Thinking that way is just setting yourself up to find the worst men.

I love & trust my DH & have been with him decades. But you can never ever be certain of the future. Life happens & experiences change people. Also thinking that way do you assumes that people who end up with their partner leaving them should have seen it coming

It's not black or white.

I'm a disabled x2 single mum, but I've been incredibly lucky with a supportive work, friends and family. I was also 'lucky' with the timings I became single and not having massive child care bills, only needed wrap around care.

In my first relationship I was left a (young) single mum with nothing. I vowed never to be in the situation again. As soon as i could i started saving, hard. 18 yrs later i found myself single again (have a 14 Yr age gap between kids) and I cant explain how much easier it was having that money behind me.

Truly thankful I was in all these positions at the right time over the year to have made that possible.

Society will be just fine without career women because it was in the past

Depends on what you consider 'fine' I guess.

And can we please stop using the term career women...... unless you are also going to introduce the term career men

@pixie5121 Lots of people retrain and change careers during their life anyway. It's really not the huge barrier to employment that you think it is. Anyone with a degree can retrain to be a teacher - they're absolutely desperate for teachers and a 10 year SAHM gap will make zero difference to employability.

My DH retrained into his current career in his early 30's - started with no experience and is in a management role within 5 years.

Perhaps that's why I feel less angsty about it - my own experience is that it's not too hard to build a new career if you are bright and educated and motivated.

Other people might be quite happy being a cleaner or a supermarket worker - no stress or overtime, come home and relax. No one will care too much about the dreaded CV gap.

Like if you want to work work, but a lot of posters are sounding like the only reason they even want to work is fear of being dumped by some bum of a man.

Equally lots of posters assume you only work because of financial necessity.

I don't think it's necessarily a case of working in case your DH leaves, but if for example you're dependant on his income and he becomes ill or disabled, that can have a devastating impact.

My DH had an accident which meant he was unable to work for 6 months. He had insurance which paid out eventually but it was my salary which kept us afloat for the 4 months in between his salary becoming SSP and the insurance paying out.

I'm aware of that. I retrained myself.

It's very, very hard to retrain as a teacher while also being responsible for kids and running a house, with little or no support. I think it is a pretty big barrier.

If SAHMs have chosen to stay home because it's better for the kids, how does that square with being forced to retrain, spend hours studying, and be knackered and have no free time?

Which will be never because it’s a normal and natural way to live and is good for kids.

Is it though? historically women worked unless they were upper class but then they weren't with their dc all the time either. My granny never worked but she had 7 dc, no dishwasher, microwave, washing machine, car, etc. so wasn't spending her time playing with the dc. Surely historically it's only been a very small window where women were at home & doing stuff w

with dc as opposed to chores.

Why are so many working mums up in arms over sahm? Reading through and engaging in this thread, it's not about genuine concern for other women who may be vulnerable.
It's full of cynical women who think they know better. Who needs men to bring us down when we have this.

pixie5121 - my point was, that (thinking of the SAHMs in my circle) what I see is - many women have been in 'professional' jobs through their 20s and into their 30s. Perhaps they find it all fine, but not the be-all-and-end-all. They want a change of pace and a change of focus after children come along. They have a husband who understands that this is fine thing his wife is compelled to do and who also believes in the benefits of his children having their mum available with no other demands on her time. The woman obviously knows this will mean a gap on her CV but, at the end of the day, this is a decision she is taking with her eyes wide open and probably she has no intention of returning into that career path anyway.

Some women who largely define themselves by their career or who have no choice to work would seem this as a crazy risk and I can understand that. I'm just trying to explain that, for many women, the benefits of being a SAHM far outweigh the negatives. Like anything else in life, it's a cost-benefit analysis.

As I said, they may have no intention of returning to what they did before and are under no delusions about 'gaps on CVs' . They have factored this in and if they were not confident in the choice to be a SAHM, they wouldn't be one! Trust me on that.

The attitude in MN is that high-earning men with SAH wives are all bastards and ' facilitated.' Obviously, there are bastard men in all walks of life. But also obviously, there are some very decent men out there - who happen to have SAH wives. Of course they don't expect their wives to take a significant career gap to care for their children and then, as soon as the kids reach a certain age, expect them to stack shelves in Tesco, as you put it. On the contrary, nearly all the husbands I know are decent reasonable men who are delighted to support their wives taking on new business ventures or training as the kids get older. For instance, my friend I'm seeing tonight used to work in a corporate set-up and hated it. After a ten year period as a SAHM, husband has 'facilitated' her to do what she loves which is to train as a jewellery designer and now she has a successful business by the sound of it. Or my other friend who is a yoga teacher now and runs luxury yoga retreats all over the world. She's in her early 50s now and says she's fitter and happier than pre-kids and if she hadn't had tome out of her previous corporate role to be a SAHM for 12 years, she might never have re-evaluated her life in this way. I'm just trying to say, life changes and being a SAHM does not need to mean you are doomed forever. Everyone is an individual. Every individual is best placed to know what suits them.

Lots of people retrain and change careers during their life anyway. It's really not the huge barrier to employment that you think it is. Anyone with a degree can retrain to be a teacher - they're absolutely desperate for teachers and a 10 year SAHM gap will make zero difference to employability.

I always thought the issue with a gap was that it's harder to negotiate p/t, flexibility, extended holiday when you starting out.

You really think a SAHM who previously enjoyed a nice, middle class lifestyle seeing her friends for lunch, going to yoga and holidaying in Marbella is suddenly going to be happy with a minimum wage job in the Co-op and a week in a tent in Wales, if she can stretch to it?
this was asked of someone else but this is me and if it means I don’t have a commute that means I barely see my kids, or have insane pressure regularly shoved onto me, give me a tent any day😂

If SAHMs have chosen to stay home because it's better for the kids

I get so tired of this judgemental line being pushed by certain SAHMs. Women (and men) need to stop putting down working mothers with sly digs about it not being good for the children when their mothers work.

I always find it incredible how no one ever seems to consider both parents working part-time as an option. Or just both parents working full-time and paying for expensive childcare.

It doesn't matter if one person earns more. It doesn't matter if one salary is wiped out by childcare costs. Childcare is a shared cost, so if you're deducting it in full from just one earner, your maths is flawed.

That's a short-sighted way of looking at it. If one person earns less and stops working, and falls out of the market for a very long time, that earnings gap is just going to widen and widen and widen. Plus, if you're not working, that severely limits the amount of tax relief you can get on pension contributions.

I always feel that both individuals should be financially independent. That way, they can both actively choose to stay in the relationship. Choosing to be together is much nicer than being trapped together.

As an adult who is physically and mentally able to work, I would feel deeply uncomfortable on relying 100% on someone else for enough money to live.

Ps I’m sure it’s been said upthread but there’s a huge amount of sahds now. Childcare is as expensive as a minimum wage job, people don’t have family to help and of course one person is as likely to earn a huge amount more than the other!

@gjatage

Thats false there’s been loads of women right throughout history that have been SAHM and wives that probably did even less housework than today thanks to the predominance of servants (or worse) throughout history. Loads it wasn’t all just the very upper class either, quite a good portion of society has lived that way for thousands of years. Yes women have worked if they needed to but if they were it was in no way a desirable existence during those times, it was often a depressing and relentless one doing some god awful job. And SAHM still do loads during the day aside from just hanging out with kids anyway. Or not if you can afford not to and want more time for friends, family and a hobby.

There really isn’t a huge amount, statistically it’s tiny. There’s not even a huge amount of stay at home mums now, the majority work and it’s becoming more and more each year,