Living off a man!!!

[iabr]

If you are among the posters on here who always sneer at SAHMs for 'living off the husband,' do you also -

• sneer at women who work PT and therefore earn less than their husbands - so are, by definition, also 'living off the husband" to a greater or lesser extent?

• sneer at women who work full-time, but still earn significantly less than the husband, so the house and other expenses are largely funded by his higher income anyway?

• sneer at any woman who has a dual income lifestyle that she couldn't maintain on her own salary / wealth?

I really don't want to get into endless personal anecdotes of - "Well I earn £x and DH earns £x..." This is about the issue of 'financial independence' within families per se. - ie . recognising that it's accrued family wealth that determines financial independence and it's not necessarily always as simple as who earns what. A SAHM may well have greater financial independence than a woman on a high salary, depending on that family's underlying financial circumstances.

So AIBU to say to MN - Stop telling SAHMs they are 'financially vulnerable' - unless you know the details of their unique financial family circumstances!

If a SAHM dares to suggest this than they are told it's rubbish, what they do would simply be outsourced if they weren't around or they have no significant impact because after all working mothers do all that and work full time.

That's not the comments I see.

"That's not the comments I see."
Maybe you're not a SAHM so not particularly sensitive to these comments. But I assure you they're on MN. I've seen them repeatedly.
Some WOHM on here absolutely insist that they do everything a SAHM does and they work too! When SAHMs point out, yes, of course they do the same job, but that the SAHMs simply put in more hours as they don't outsource childcare...so it's same job, but longer hours vs shorter hours at home plus work....it seems to incense some WOHM. It really does. I've seen it on here time and again. It's very strange.
I could understand it if or when the SAHMs were implying they did a better job...but I've seen conversations just as I've described above, with a SAHM clearly acknowledging they do the same job and just choose to support the family in different ways. Some say they would love to contribute financially but can't because of their particular circumstances. And they still get raged at by some on here! As I said, it's strange and I believe the OP is right...women could with listening to what other women are saying.

@5128gap

EXACTLY. SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK.

I have made the point on multiple threads but it somehow always gets ignored.

In the long run policy choices should discourage SAHP. Meaning better funded childcare, part-time working etc. But I actively oppose things like 'tax breaks for SAHP' unless they are carers for disabled children.

Just catching up. I don't want to stifle your discussion, but there will always be a carbon copy of this debate on any thread that is directly or obliquely related to 'SAHM.' In the past I've posted about something totally unrelated, but a few pages in, someone asks, "are you a SAHM OP?" And then that's it! The whole topic is derailed into this exact debate about the impact of SAHMs in society.

The fact that, on MN, SAHMs are almost expected to justify themselves or accept some kind of special responsibility for structural inequality is related to my point in the OP.

That point being - the whole WOHM v SAHM mentality on here is an utter nonsense. It is so ridiculously simplistic and does my head in, tbh.

Far more relevant to think of where you may fit on a spectrum. For instance -

What about the millions of women who work part-time in some capacity? Are they also contributing to structural inequality if they are enabling the DH to continue full time? Why do threads from women who work part time not inevitably develop into this wider debate about structural inequality?

What about women who work full time for low / average wages, but whose lifestyle is very significantly 'propped up' by a much higher earning husband? Yes she's ostensibly a WOHM, but is there really that much difference when you think about it?

What about women who are just low earners anyway? Particularly the women on next to MW who are looking after our children for us so that we can earn higher salaries than them? Should they be skewered at for not aiming to earn more? Is their decision to remain in low paid 'caring' roles' something to be ashamed of because they should be striving to push themselves harder to redress structural inequality?

Where would we be if these women in childcare were not prepared to work for practically MW to facilitate US (men and women) being able to work?

Ultimately, we are all 'facilitated' to some extent and by someone somewhere - whether it's a lower-paid childcare worker; a spouse who can works limited / fixed or more flexible hours; your mother or family members doing it for free perhaps? All these types of 'support' will come with their own benefits and limitations. The SAHM model is just one of an almost many models,. I totally get the point about structural inequality (obviously), but it's just another variation of family set-up with its own benefits and setbacks for women. When it works, it most certainly works - as has been the case for our family. It would not work for everyone though, and I completely accept it's not a choice most families are even in a position to make anyway these days..But realistically nobody is going to make their own life or their family's life harder if they don't need to. At the end of the day, families decide for themselves if they need two full time incomes or they don't. If they don't, it offers up other options. Simple as that really. You do what you need to do, but also what you want to do and what you can do.

There's a huge amount of societal value in children being raised well and becoming positive, considerate and productive members of society.

An absolutely key issue though, is that this doesn't have anything to do with WOH/SAH per se, since it's entirely possible to raise children with love, with their needs met and with sound values, whether you are a working or non working parent. And of course conversely, it's true that children can be neglected, abused and not raised well in a family where both, one or neither parent works.

To put it simply: society should value good parenting.

If a family decide for their own individual circumstance they want one parent to SAH then that's entirely up them but there's no reason why society as a whole should value that choice for it's own sake. Of course one would hope that the SAH themselves and their partner value it!

That's because when you dig into what those SAHPs mean, what they mean is that you actually don't raise your kids or parent them other than brining in money. They can't imagine a woh parent actually spends time with, nutures, reads with, cooks for, cleans after their kids. They seem to imagine that those woh sweep in for an hour before an dafter work and outsource the rest. Presumably because that's what they allow their working husbands to do. When in fact all those things still need to be done by someone and, in the absence of the SAHP, they are done by those woh parents. Believe it or not!

Everybody is 'sensitive' to comments that attack them. There may be 100 supportive comments, 2 anti comments. But you only remember the latter.
Unless you used a machine learning algorithm and did a statistical analysis of exactly how many there are nobody knows for certain.

What I remember is an equal amount of snipping from both sides, by people who have extreme opinions. And a lot of them are retaliatory. So to answer your question the WOHM are probably 'incensed' because people have made comments like them being a part-time parent/ outsourcing theyr children/damage nursery does and the other way around is r.e. all the assumptions about SAHM that have been already discussed on this thread.

@iabr I work part time. Because I want time with my children and work life balance. I do not need to do this for my DH, his arrangements are relatively unaffected either way, although we both acnkoweldge it makes our lives easier and we feel it has a benefit to our family.
But I also, without a doubt, go above and beyond to make sure that it doesn't negatively impact my work. Because for me it's important to illustrate to the people I work with that being part time doesn't mean you do a bad job, or you don't have equal value.

A lot of generalisation there, OP.

But then there is often a lot of generalisation on MN.

For example, marriage is not always in the best interests of women or their children. If she owns a significant asset (e.g a house she bought before meeting him), earns more than him, is entering a second marriage that could see him inherit over her kids, etc.

I am always concerned to see women look at the whole context and do their best for their security, but never sneer at anyone.

Being a SAHM I would want to see a woman using family finances to pay into a pension if household income allows. To make sure her NI record is full. To be on the deeds to the house if not married, etc etc.

Personally I do not think anyone is secure if they are financially dependent on someone else. Or if they forgo promotion, professional development, a pension etc without knowing they will be OK in the longer term.

But that doesn’t mean I sneer at them, or their choices and decisions.

I think society should value all caring roles even unpaid ones. I think good parenting regardless of whether the parent is at home or working is absolutely valuable to society as is caring for the disabled and elderly.

It's valid to talk about how some people in the workplace have much more significant domestic responsibilities than others, and the impact this has, but men with SAHPs are only one part of that picture. And it is quite telling that it gets framed as SAHPs look at the impact your facilitation has.

But SAHPs are the only ones actively facilitating someone's lack of domestic responsibilities. It's not comparable to a situation where people don't have them in the first place.

Working patterns often need to change when kids come along, but when we have a situation where SAHP (predominately women) are ensuring their partner can carry on regardless, this will of course negatively impact women (mostly) who don't have that kind of support.

So yes, I think it's a very problematic position from a feminist point of view.

Icanstillrecallourlastsummer You don't need to justify why you work part-time. Whatever works for you, works for you. Obviously. My whole point is that no woman should need to justify anything - including SAHMs.

That's because when you dig into what those SAHPs mean, what they mean is that you actually don't raise your kids or parent them other than brining in money. They can't imagine a woh parent actually spends time with, nutures, reads with, cooks for, cleans after their kids. They seem to imagine that those woh sweep in for an hour before an dafter work and outsource the rest. Presumably because that's what they allow their working husbands to do. When in fact all those things still need to be done by someone and, in the absence of the SAHP, they are done by those woh parents. Believe it or not!

No, this is the problem.
You are saying here what you think they mean.
I have read threads on here where the OP was extremely clear that she did not mean anything negative. She was clear that, if circumstances allowed, she would prefer to work outside the home. She felt she was letting her children down financially. Yet as soon as she said 'I'm a SAHM' others (WOHM) thought she was sneering at them as you have described above. She wasn't.
And she was attacked by many instead of receiving support.

As I said, listening to and not pre-judging people is crucial so I agree with the OP of this thread.

I dont' feel a need to justify it per se. I do feel though that I don't need to contribute to an issue in society that I find massively annoying and which has negatively impacted me personally.

One thing I've always found a little problematic about the issue of people feeling valued, is what would that actually look like in reality?

I mean, if I'd decided to be a SAHM, I would have expected my DH to show that he valued it (because presumably it would have been a joint decision.) But in terms of wider society.... well, it wouldn't occur to me to expect 'society' to 'value' something which would have been a personal choice and didn't affect anyone outside our own family.

No, there was a thread not too long ago where SAHP were literally saying they did not believe that woh parents did this sort of thing. And that they acknowledged that bringing in money to the home was a part of parenting, therefore woh were doing parenting.

to add @Marynotsocontrary I think it's worth noting that there's a whole thread of woh sayng they aren't sneering, and are told they are by SAHM. But when the shoe is on the other foot and woh are recounting what they have had said to them then they are definitely just imagining misunderstanding it all.

I’ve never seen any sahm being criticized for being “just a mum”. Single mums (like me) on the other hand are fair game it seems on mn for criticism. Someone told me on a thread that I should have had an abortion. I am a hard working professional who pays my own way.

But SAHPs are the only ones actively facilitating someone's lack of domestic responsibilities. It's not comparable to a situation where people don't have them in the first place.

Working patterns often need to change when kids come along, but when we have a situation where SAHP (predominately women) are ensuring their partner can carry on regardless, this will of course negatively impact women (mostly) who don't have that kind of support.

Again, it's not just SAHM facilitating this. My in laws do all childcare for SIL and her DH they go to their house, care for the kids and the dog, cook all the meals do chores, take them to clubs etc.
Two of my DC have friends who live with GP's during the week while their parents work, another lived with an Aunt as her Dad worked abroad and her mum in a city miles away.
My children's godparents have a full time nanny who does the same.

Some sahm make stupid claims to woh parents (I didn’t have kids for someone else to raise them) and some don’t. Not possible to make a blanket generalization

As opposed to woh, who are all a humogenous group of SAHM sneering meanies?

@MrsBwced true but it's predominantly women who facilitate this which is an issue

As pointed out a couple of posts up, this simply isn't true. It's also highly problematic from a feminist point of view to frame the issue in this way, with no matching demands on the people who are getting facilitated, and are generally the more powerful and advantaged parties.

I don't feel insulted by that tbh. I do feel insulted by being called a leech or told my dh won't respect me, because I am adding value to our family. And it's just rude and nasty and generally disrespectful to speak about people like that.

And I'm not sure that all jobs add value to society either. Lots of people aren't earning enough to pay tax or aren't doing jobs that make society better.

My in laws do all childcare for SIL and her DH they go to their house, care for the kids and the dog, cook all the meals do chores, take them to clubs etc.

I doubt they're claiming credit for SIL/DH's progress in their careers however. Which is specifically what I'm talking about.

Two of my DC have friends who live with GP's during the week while their parents work, another lived with an Aunt as her Dad worked abroad and her mum in a city miles away.

Those are highly unusual situations to be fair.

My children's godparents have a full time nanny who does the same.

She's being paid to do a job. Again, not the same thing.

In none of these cases are the facilitators focused on facilitating only men to do their jobs. And that's the bit that's problematic from a feminism POV.

No, there was a thread not too long ago where SAHP were literally saying they did not believe that woh parents did this sort of thing. And that they acknowledged that bringing in money to the home was a part of parenting, therefore woh were doing parenting.

My point is not everyone thinks the same!
SAHMs don't all have the same opinions, neither do WOHMs.
Just because one SAHM says something nasty doesn't mean the next SAHM who posts should be attacked. The same for WOHMs.

What I was objecting to upthread was a pp saying they had never seen comments suggesting that WOHMs do all that a SAHM do and work. In fact, those comments crop up on MN with numbing regularity.