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

@OrangeSamphire

Women have not always worked - unless they needed the money badly. Your trying to rewrite history to fit your own views and it’s just delusion.

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

Agree but then don't say you are at home to be a constant presence or it's normal to be with dc all day. You don't need to justify your choices by rubbishing others.

@Topgub

No women have not always worked - poor women worked out of neccisity. What you are confusing is women doing tasks at home or in the cave and making this out to be the same as a modern career - it is not the same. The vast majority of middle to upper class women for hundreds if not thousands of years in any relatively prosperous society did not work outside the home, they did the role of a SAHM.
Those women who were forced to work who you want to identify with really weren’t doing anything enviable that anyone would ever do by choice, not unless you like dust heaps or similar.

As many others have said, women from certain social classes have always worked. Those who didn't need to work certainly weren't setting out a SAHM role in the way we recognise it now.

The concept of staying at home purely for the benefit of a child is a relatively modern phenomenon.

It depends what you mean by "better". "Better" might simply mean that the kids prefer and enjoy being with their mother, and that their mother is enjoying her days with them too. It doesn't have to mean there's any long term effects, just that the set up tends to promote their day to day happiness at that time.

It's also individual, Personally, I was a much "better" mother when I was at home, compared to when I was stressed out of my mind and working all hours of the day and night. Others might feel bored and frustrated at home and be a "better" mother after a day at the office.

Depends on the job, depends on the parents. There is not one universal "better".

@gjatage

I am at home and so where the women I mentioned to be a constant presence- that’s just the truth and part of the reason for being a SAHM, it’s not trying to rub anyones face in anything. If people feel attacked by that it’s not my intention I’m honestly just giving a reason for being at home. And I was saying it was normal to be with kids all day in response to posters commenting (knowingly falsely imo) as though SAHM were some freak occurrence when that couldn’t be further from the truth.

*carrying out

Hilarious!

of course while women were in the caves doing unpaid work, the men were outside the caves doing guess what… unpaid work!

women have always worked. It’s just we got left behind when the men started being paid for it. And then some of use CHOSE to continue in this vein. Which keeps women as a class oppressed, because why would men step up to all the societal tasks women have taken on when they can just assume a woman will do it.

@brookstar

Not so - having a mother at home and around the children has historically always been seen as a positive for them and in fact to do otherwise would have been looked down on - not that I’m advocating that, but I’m just saying the whole idea of women all choosing to work throughout history and no one caring if the childrens mother was around which is being pushed on here is laughable and clearly comes from a place of wanting to justify one’s own life choices.

If you want to work do so - no need to rewrite some funny historical fiction to make sense of it.

Gosh you are the epitome of smugness, OP.

If a woman actually wants to look after her children at home, rather than pay someone else to do it, good on her, I say. Some mothers are just naturals at finding creative things to do with their children.

I sent my dd to a nursery and do not feel that other people making other choices is an attack on my child-rearing.

If someone has fallen into an abusive relationship, maybe we should ask how we can help, rather than criticising.

If people have disabled children at home, again, how can society help?

But you just want to sneer and feel superior

@limemintice

The alternative (which we have) is both parents working and sharing childcare

I havent argued sahms do nothing. Especially not if they have an oH who takes full advantage. But they don't make a difference to overall parenting outcomes in comparison to 2 involved wp

Most working mums dont have a sahd. Thats the difference.

I’ll say it again… it is possible to work and be a constant presence for your children. I do this as do many other parents. Some of us even home ed at the same time. Just imagine 🤔

It doesn’t have to be either it. It can be ‘and’.

DomPerignon12 - when I was growing up in the 70s / 80s (very average background) most women didn't work. My mum did absolutely loads with me in the day. Yes, it is true that kids used to play out more than today. I don't know if that's a sign of the times so just the fact my kids have grown up in London so you could never just fling the doors open and say "off you go." But certainly, when I was growing up, I wasn't aware if any such thing as day nurseries or babies being dropped off at 8am and collected at 6pm and parents paying thousands for this. Definitely, nobody had a nanny or childminder. Definitely, nobody had a cleaner. But times have changed. These days most families need two incomes to buy a home. This was not the case in the 70s. Also, expectations were lower in general. Schools were less competitive. You could leave school at 16 then snd get a job. Uni entry was only about 20%, whereas these days it seems they need a degree to do most jobs above MW.

@PrincessMeg

Working is working regardless of if its a necessity or not. Its still work.

Historically women did not fulfill the role of a sahm as you see it. They just didn't.

How could it have been viewed as important to have a mother at home historically when historically children were sent out to work or to board/had nannies?

@OrangeSamphire

Its a myth that prehistorical cave times where some wonderful equal utopia with men and women both working etc.
The mens tasks brought them social power as did their political jockeying and the womens tasks where neccisities similar to those of a lower class housewife with many chores - those times have more in common with an old fashioned lifestyle of men and women from say a village in medieval times than they do with whatever modern working couples lifestyle your imagine they’re like.

Things weren’t so different then, if Grug decides that I would be a good mother and wife then I will receive benifet from Grug and in that way based on my abilities attain social power, but if you don’t want to do motherly things and chose Shub who isn’t so hot in the tribe and likes sharing your responsibilities in the cave, then you, not having a Grug man will achieve lesser social position and power - even if you and Shubs combined basket weaving skills crap all over the baskets I don’t bother to make, because Grug and me decide I’m not going to bother. That’s life sister! So will it always be

TopGub - but what is the point in both parents working and paying someone else to facilitate that if they don't need to and they don't even want to. You seem to assume that everyone has time-limited, regular jobs with similar, predictable hours and always based in the same place. But it's not always like that. You must surely realise that not everyone has your type of job or your husband's type of job? And that some women actively want to be with their children. It's not about thinking they are 'better.' Not at all. It's just what they feel they want to do. When did the wish to be around for your own children become something women are supposed to feel guilty about?

Some people are more career orientated and some people enjoy being SAHP...

Lots of people enjoy lots of things. It doesn't mean they're automatically a good idea, though.

I think being a SAHP is fine, as long as you accept that you're fucking up any chance of a fulfilling life post-DC and that you're putting yourself at huge risk of being left on the bones of your arse when your DH/DP buggers off.

Amazingly it’s possible to share child / home responsibilities with one’s partner equally and both work in roles you each relish and earn well in.

And to not be in the least bit bothered about ‘social power’ or whatever it is that’s supposed to be a benefit of choosing an ‘alpha caveman’ according to @PrincessMeg.

All I know is that for my DH and I, we are socially and financially equal. And it seems a lot of other women want that too but there are still societal barriers. One of them being the normalising in recent times of a middle class SAHM.

Well, I've met quite a few of them and none of them are happy, no. They all regret it. It's made their lives much, much harder than if they'd kept working all along.

Lots of women assume their relationship will be happy ever after and they've chosen a lovely partner who would never abuse them, cheat or leave, not like those 'other' silly women who chose badly. And then they get burned.

I don’t agree that women shouldn’t be reliant on their husbands when they have small children. I think that’s personal choice and should be respected. I also think there are circumstances where it is necessary as in the case of disability. What I would strongly advocate for, though, is ensuring that as much effort goes into preparing women for work as men during school and college years. Almost all electrical/plumbing etc. apprenticeships, for example, go to boys because girls don’t even apply, and they’re well paid, flexible jobs. Women need to go for more highly paid jobs in science and engineering but they don’t get career advice at the outset that encourages them down those routes. I would always advise women to get a qualification and experience under their belts, and if circumstances change you can do part time/consultancy and keep your hand in until you want to return full time.

"I think being a SAHP is fine, as long as you accept that you're fucking up any chance of a fulfilling life post-DC"

Speak for yourself. I' plan to be mainly overseas. Can't wait.

What about men who can retire early? Shouod U tell my husband to keep going until he's 70, otherwise he's ruined the chance of a fulfilling life.

That’s my experience of growing up as well.

@limemintice

Are you mistaking me for someone else?

You appear to be putting a lot of words in my mouth.

You do you hun....

No I was replying to the other poster.

@SofiaSoFar

What you don’t seem able to understand is many women don’t find working a career they don’t give a crap about into middle age and beyond fulfilling. Personally more time for hobbies and passions, friends, holidays and relaxation sounds far more preferable that the “fulfilment” of some corporate rung climbing.