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

I was a SAHM for two reasons, I wanted children and I wanted to spend as much time with my children as I could when they were little. We also had no money so actually couldn’t afford childcare, even if we wanted to go that route…but I didn’t see the point of paying someone else to do the job I wanted to do. In all my married years I have never felt like I have been ‘oppressed’ or financially abused or that I have missed out in some way. My husband carries half of everything when he is home, cooks and cleans and deals with the mental load. We have never argued over money and it just goes in one big pot. I now work full time that the kids are older but I chose what was right for me which is what everyone needs to do, what is right for one person is sometimes an anathema for next. Stop judging.
BTW I 100% call myself a feminist

I would think in a world where diversity and difference makes us stronger it is a good thing to have children raised in different ways, by SAHMs, WFHPs, grandparents, nurseries, full time, part time. Or do we want to live in a cookie cutter world where everyone is the same, all kids must be in nursery 8-6, all mums must work? You do what's right for you. If life happens and things fall apart, you pick yourself up and fix it as best you can. Woman A might rely on a man who leaves her. Woman B might have a career and be totally independent, then bad health causes her to no longer be able to work. No one knows the future in any case.

'If nobody asks then they are assuming you don't work.'

Possibly - when mine were at the prep school, it was probably 80-90% mums there at drop-off pick ups and whenever there was a coffee morning or people meeting for lunch or other various things in the day, people would come. I mean, you never really heard, "Oh sorry can't make that day as I'm working," and in conversation, it never really came up as I remember. Also neighbours now - somebody invited this section of the road in for coffee the other day and I think nearly everyone went at 11am. I also see turn around in the day all the time and there a Whattsapp group and the general impression I get is that If the women do work, it's very flexi. But nobody asks anybody. I think quite a lot of women around me are involved in charity stuff or their own projects, but they don't necessarily need to tell everyone about it.

them around - not turn around!

@limemintice

All the sahms you know are educated and competent yet its still them not working while their ohs are pursuing their careers.

I'm not sure how that means they have more control of their lives than the average woman

Because it's a choice TopGub. And they are not financially vulnerable. If they felt financially vulnerable, they would be working wouldn't they?

(Disclaimer- I work) But SAHMs have more control of their kids lives, every single day and moment, picking them up from school, teaching them, caring for them. It's not bad or wrong or 'un-feminist' that many women have an overwhelming urge to want to do those things themselves. Yes they might be putting themselves in a vulnerable position. But they might see the perceived reward to their children as a justified trade off. IF they are in a position to do it, which not all of us are (I couldn't not work as my OH is not a high earner) I don't see why they should be judged.

@WishingWell5

Shouldn't we be acknowledging that needing that level of control isn't a good thing?

Rather than pretending that because some women choose it, it must be the ideal?

I've never really understood the idea that things shouldn't be judged.

Everyone judges. Its a normal human emotion.

Plenty sahms judge working mums. Never working dads though, obviously

🤣

Well personally, I don't 'judge' working mums! Judge what exactly? What is a working mum anyway? It could be someone who works school hours locally in a shop or something, or WFH or someone who is hardly ever home. The whole categorisation of 'WOHM' is utter nonsense because it could be billions of things. Also, as WishingWell says, life changes. In general, I have utmost respect for women who work. Why wouldn't I?! But regardless of what any mum does it doesn't do, I'm sure 99.9% of mums are doing their best. Beyond that, it's absolutely none of my business how families organise themselves. Why would I care about that? I wish the anti-SAHM obsessive did MN could just get over it really, because it's tiring.

"Shouldn't we be acknowledging that needing that level of control isn't a good thing?"

What do you even mean by that?

I think it's hard to say something is inherently 'bad' or 'good'. I just think it's complex and totally depends on the circumstances. I think both can be commendable in different ways. Both can be bad and good, depending on perspective, or how a persons life unfolds, which is an unknown. So yes everyone is free to judge, but it doesn't mean their opinions are right. I get that you mean they might be helpful, in that it encourages women to think 'what if?' and have a back up plan.

@limemintice

Yet you've accused 'people' on the thread of being bitter?

Also, you could just not read the thread?
They're not compulsory.

Well if there were threads about "WOHMs- AIBU to be STAGGERED about x,y,z..." I can assure you I would not be on those threads because I have genuinely nothing to say about "WOHMs" whosoever they may be. Why would I remotely care about that?

So I do wonder why some people are so bothered about "SAHMs", yes. It's very strange indeed.

Of course judging individuals for their individual lifestyles can be a shitty thing to do.

However there are some systemic sex-based issues that affect stay at home parenting that are problematic.

It is still assumed (in heterosexual relationships at least) that if one parent is going to SAH, it's the mum.

Why?

Well... systemic inequalities in the workplace mean it's often the woman that earns less, and so it's her career that gets sacrificed.

This then turns into a huge feedback cycle where it is systemically harder for women as a whole to achieve in their careers because so many choose to be at home or work P/T, which feeds unhelpful assumptions about what women can or want to do at work.

To create genuine choice we need better parental leave options, flexibility from employers for both men and women, and better childcare options so that no-one ends up choosing to SAH because it's unviable financially to WOH or WAH.

Plenty of WOH and WAH mothers are working hard to campaign for this. Will the SAHMs join us?

"Will the SAHMs join us?"

"The SAHMs" are not a different species you know. They are as varied as any other women. Also, I'm pretty sure I'm exactly the came person now as I was when I was working. But aside from this - yes. As long as SAH is also seen as the viable option that it is. Otherwise, you are not campaigning for genuine choice. You're just replacing one set of barriers and misogyny with another.

To create genuine choice we need better parental leave options, flexibility from employers for both men and women, and better childcare options so that no-one ends up choosing to SAH because it's unviable financially to WOH or WAH.

Amen to this!

Of course being a SAHP is a valid choice.... but only if it really is a choice!

@WishingWell5 exactly
According to some women who have children must only part time parent, work to pay someone else, like nursery staff to assist them in raising the children.

The logic behind this is so that their OH can work less and free up the small, maybe non existent chance that a woman somewhere may be considered for an imaginary promotion that may never exist.

Children get sent off to strangers whether they need it or not. Women have to work whether they need to or not.
Both mum and dad don't get career progression because everything is 50/50. This is to help a hypothetical woman, get an imaginary promotion. Makes sense right? This theory in practice would only ever benefit a childless woman or man.
It works on the assumption career is most important thing, that everyone must be competitive in the same area. It also works on the assumption that everyone's ambitious in the same area.

Take away all choice. That isn't feminism, that's communism.

Also, sahm are forced into it but pretend their not. Their husband will surely cheat and doesn't care about their children.
At the same time, sahm also swan around well groomed, getting their nails done in their expensive cars and don't want to parent. Their push over man works 80 hours and despises them. Not conflicting in the slightest.

Certain obsessive posters need to find some fulfillment in their own lives and stop fantasising about others.

That's probably a similar situation to the one I would be in if my husband and I separated. I work part time in a not highly paid professional job. If my husband left me I could increase my hours to full time easily, with my wage and half the equity from our house in London I could probably afford a 2 bed flat in outer London. With three children who are used to having their own rooms, who have lots of local friends, who attend great schools it is not a choice I would choose to make if I could avoid it. So despite having a career, I would probably choose to stay in my marriage even if I was unhappy because I wouldn't want to turn my children's lives upside down.

Haven't read comments. I was reliant on my ex because I was the one who birthed the children and childcare costs for 4 was greater than my income would have been. I also wanted to raise them and be able to take them to their sports. It was supposed to be a partnership and makes the most sense to a family.

However, I am qualified and experienced so going back to work when I needed was fine.

@limemintice

I'm remotely bothered by the sahm role because it's a symptom of our sexist society.

Why women and not men make this choice and claim it was just what suited the family without thinking why that would be should be discussed

If you dont want to discuss gender politics, dont.

I get its probably easier not to acknowledge how sexism has impacted your choices

Working.Parents.Raise.Their.Children.

I also wanted to raise them and be able to take them to their sports.

You might not mean this as it sounds but working parents still raise their children and take them to their sports.

TopGub - I'm out for lunch now and with people. I'm more than happy to discuss how sexism has impacted my life if the thread is still going later. It's fairly obvious. I am 48 years old and have lived a life. Sometimes, you see everything for what it is, but still, when it comes to your children, you do what you feel you need to do.

Mothers at work are not hypothetical. Nor are the promotions or other ambitions they may be working towards (ditto fathers).

Why would you assume this?

And the post about the SAHMs swanning around getting their nails done while their DH worked 80 hours a week was a quote from a thread by SAHMs about 'how great their lives are'.

@limemintice

And again we need to ask why women feel they need to 'raise their children' and men don't.

As long as societal impacts teach girls that they can only raise their children if they don't work (while being horrified at the idea that their working ohs are anything but equal involved parents) then we won't have equality.

You may not want to discuss that but I do.

And not because I'm bitter or obsessed but because I think tackling sexism is important