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

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.
Not if you get paid and that amount goes into childcare straight away, if you get paid x and at the end of the week you pay x plus something and you’re commuting and wrecked and neither of you see your kids enough of course you’ll consider that person leaving. And this is from someone who left work for ten years for kids and now is back-people who ‘have it all’ are either not full time or have significant outside help-if you have two members of a family working, your family take the hit in some way

@FOTB

Its not all about how to afford childcare or duct up responsibility in the maximum efficient robotic way, it’s a choice to live a lifestyle that works for you and your kids - surely you understand that?

Most people don’t just base their entire life and family structure on seeing time with children as childcare that costs money, in business terms, you must be able to understand that.

@PrincessMeg but historically the women who had servants would have had childcare didn't they? they weren't taking dc on play dates or swimming every day etc.
I'm not knocking it, I had nannies & au pairs but my mum didn't work. I don't subscribe to the view that she dumped me in childcare or someone else raised me.

Wisteriaroundthedoor

That’s possibly and probably true but in both our schools there’s definitely less one person working parents and there’s a large amount sahds. We’re rural so don’t know if that’s the thing. Love your name by the way!

@pixie5121 It would be hard, but totally possible to retrain if that's what you had to do ( and wanted to do) . It's not the case that you would have to take an unskilled job or nothing.

Presumably the ex SAHM in this situation wouldn't think it was ideal for her or her kids, but at that point it would be necessary.

Presumably she would be happy that she got to spend X number of years as a SAHM before going back to work again.

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

I work p/t & often use childcare on days off. Also used childcare with subsequent maternity leaves, have I ruined my dcs lives? 🙄

@stayathomer

The percentage of SAHD is actually barely anything, something like 2 or 3% - the amount of men who say they want to us something like 10% or under so not many.

Its wonderful for men that way inclined and f they can find women who want that that they have the chance to do it, but I think people thinking that men are going to want to be SAHD at the same rate as women will stay home are kidding themselves.

We just have different instincts in general and that’s alright. There no need to have a go at people for doing what’s natural and right for them.

Women have always worked. A small period of history blocked women from entering 'the professions' but that's long past.

The phenomenon of the middle class SAHM in modern society seems a bit of a historical oddity perhaps is particular to a certain generation or two.

I grew up in a part of the country and during a time when the middle class SAHM was ubiquitous and the very embodiment of the stereotypical tennis playing, coffee drinking, nails and hair loving, dinner party set, trailing about after their husbands at corporate dos and generally being vapid. Who were all totally dependent on their husbands financially (most of whom worked in finance) and now at least 50% of them are divorced, living off pay-offs from their ex-husbands.

Personally I never, ever wanted to be like that and feel these women do 'women as a class' a huge disservice. I hope it's a passing phase that women of that type are moving on from. But looking at MN, I'm not sure.

(of course I know there are other types of SAHM but it is this particular type that gets scorn, and I totally see why)

@gjatage

Yes they had help - the difference was their continual presence in children lives and the children were at home, that’s quite different than daycare from 8 to 5. I’m not advocating women slaving away without hell and martyring themselves. I had a nanny and have an au pair and it’s great if possible, why wouldn’t you?

It just pisses me off that some people have such a big problem with the existence of SAHM as though they’re a problem to their beliefs and must be eradicated basically. When actually were totally normal and doing something perfectly natural.
Its like what is their problem?

@OrangeSamphire apparently we are wrong.

@Foxgluv

I'm not spoiling for a fightI just don't understand the point of your comment

No one said they could be a sahm and pursue a career. So your comments stating you cant are a bit odd.

You can however parent well and have a career. Easily.

I dont have an issue with individual sahms. Most of them are victims of the system.

The role itself promotes sexism and inequality.

I do have an issue with sahm who think they're better parents. Or that theyre raising their kids anymore than wp are. They're not

I don't have anything to be bitter about so Im not sure why you'd think that

@PrincessMeg

No.

It wasn't fine.

Yes they had help - the difference was their continual presence in children lives and the children were at home, that’s quite different than daycare from 8 to 5. I’m not advocating women slaving away without hell and martyring themselves. I had a nanny and have an au pair and it’s great if possible, why wouldn’t you?

But I don't understand why someone who works is not a continual presence in their dcs lives, could you explain? Not everyone who works needs daycare 8-5 anyway but if they do why are they not a continual presence whereas you are with childcare?

• It just pisses me off that some people have such a big problem with the existence of SAHM as though they’re a problem to their beliefs and must be eradicated basically. When actually were totally normal and doing something perfectly natural. Its like what is their problem?*

I don't have a problem with SAHPs if you read my posts. I just don't subscribe to the view that women only work out of financial choice, women should be at home with their dc, etc etc.

Yes absolutely agree

some have no choice I understand that

i was always bought up to believe you need to look after yourself, once children are at school i think it’s the sensible choice to earn something even if not much one you are back in the work force secondly you have money that’s your own and can put away

But sharing the financial burden (and retaining your financial independence) by both working the same amount of time means you also share the amount of time you both get with the children. If you want to have children, I don't understand why you wouldn't want an equal shot at your partner at being able to spend time with them? Surely that's the lifestyle every parent wants? However much time is available, not being the parent who comes up shortchanged?

Yes they had help - the difference was their continual presence in children lives and the children were at home,

Working parents still have a continual presence in their children lives. We don't cease to exist once we go to work.

Continual presence doesn't need to mean being with someone 24/7

Hope I don’t out myself here.

i have 2 kids (8 and 4). My husband and I work full time. I earn roughly £55k a year and I have worked so fucking hard to be financially independent. We don’t have joint bank accounts but do half all the bills equally. My husband loves that he doesn’t have to support me as a lot of his friends’ wives work part time or are SAHM mums. Obviously every family is different and when you introduce disabilities etc it’s not comparable but I agree that, on the whole, women should strive for financial independence

There are advantages and disadvantages with every course of action.

It's not about "ruining children's lives" or being a better parent, but obviously families make the choice of having a SAHP because they think it will have some benefits to the family. Clearly there are sacrifices and risks involved as well.

Families with two FT workers also do that because they think it will benefit the family. There are also sacrifices and risks to be taken account of.

These are individual choices that need to be weighed up. It can be really hard to hear about someone else's choice without feeling some kind of implied judgement.

Having children with someone is always a leap of faith that you can, financially or otherwise, depend on them sometimes.

I'm sorry you feel that way - I don't think that's what the OP meant.

I'm also disabled. I didn't work (couldn't) and I relied on my DP. We'd been together forever and were childhood sweethearts.

It didn't stop him cheating. It didn't stop him leaving.

I'm working really hard to never be reliant again. I claim what I'm entitled to, I sell online and I'm doing lots of training to find a job that may work for me.

Being disabled and poor is horrible.

@PrincessMeg

Its absolute nonsense to suggest that being a sahm as you mean it with the mummy martyr sacrificing her all to her little cherubs every whim is 'natural'

Its not.

Women have always worked. Even cave women.

And if they were rich enough to work they sure as shit weren't 'parenting'

They had nannies and help.

In poor families the kids worked, never mind the mums

TopGub - on the one hand you are arguing that there is no point in having a SAHM because, in effect, they do nothing that couldn't be squeezed into the evening (or non-working hours).

Yet, on the other hand. you argue that men who have SAHMs are opting out of parenting because they only see their kids in the evenings (or non- working hours).

You can't have it both ways. You can't decry SAHMs for facilitating men, but at the same time argue that SAHMs do nothing!

Also upper class women weren’t home to parent the kids. Thats why the had private tutors and boarding schools.
Even the middle class wives weren’t home doing ‘things with the kids’, they were doing housework and looking pretty while kids walked to school, played out with the friends!

Thats why rhe whole ‘better for the kids’ argument is laughable. They’ve always been left to their own devices. Having someone meticulously plan ‘activities’ to do with them is 100% a modern trend. Children were supposed to be seen and not heard.

Also.. dare I mention… things like wet nurses?
yeah, perfectly’natural’ to wang to do it all yourself.If it was such a joy then rich people would have done so instead of outsourcing it

@FOTB

No of course not every one aspires to do the exact same amount of parenting and some amount of paid work as their spouse - why on earth would they? What is hard to understand? Some people are more career orientated and some people enjoy being SAHP - often the two will end up with each other and it goes well. Why is that a problem for you? Why do you need to force everyone to want to do the exact same amount of hands on parenting and working to their spouse? This will never happen because people get with other people who have different personalities to them, often precisely because they’re different. And they work as a team but with differing major roles and perhaps some crossover.