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!

Seems we've got to the nub of the issue here. Society should value good parenting because ultimately that benefits us all. We all know how costly the impact of neglect and poor parenting can be.

Good parenting is not dependent on working or not.

If two parents decide that for their family, they want to have one parent SAH then obviously both parents should value that decision and the roles of each other. Outside the family, wider society really doesn't give a hoot.

all around me, in a highly populated area, that type of SAHM is the norm.

I don't think anyone on here has denied that what is all around you personally is your norm.

But it's not a personal value juddment. In my above examply I am not saying Jane isn't worthless or useless. It's in response to this "we as SAHMs should be valued by society". Ok, but why exactly. You provide value to your family and your partners. You provide value to yourself. Great, amazing. I am happy you have found what you want to do. That doesn't mean that is of value to society and needs to be recognised does it? Especailly by all the SAHMs on this thread proclaiming how they don't care what anyone thinks, becaue it's what's best for them.

This!

@Icanstillrecallourlastsummer it's not just the why, it's the how they should be valued. I mean, what does valuing a SAHP look like? If you've chosen to be one, and your partner supports you, surely that in itself is the value. What more are people looking for?! I honestly don't get that bit

Apparently its telling them how amazing they are for supporting their husband's glorious careers, and NEVER suggesting that they might possibly be putting themselves in a prevarious financial position.

If you’re doing it because that’s what works best for your family regardless of wider social consequences, why do you need other people to validate your choices?

Which is exactly why I asked the question in the first place.

PP said she categorically didn't care, as it was best for her and her family. Then said she wouldn't be insulted. So I asked if she was insulted by it. Either you care (and are insulted) or you don't (and aren't insulted because you don't care). Or something!

"Its not arrogance to say that certain roles are valued by society and others are not. Its an objective statement of fact. Sometimes imo 'society' gets it wrong, like the greater value attached to jobs that make profit as oppose to those that help people; but as a general rule, people value roles that they percieve to bring benefit to themselves and others.

Which is why most people would place greater value on the role of a surgeon than that of a social media influencer, for example.

Obviously within this people's opinions vary dependent on the own priorities, but realistically few people will value a role they don't feel has any positive impact on their lives.
I don't see what wrong with pointing that out, when surely its just common sense?"

Ok agreed (sort of). So, on that basis, how is it possible to say a non-life saving paid job (such as the social media role you mention) has more value than a SAHM being with her own children?

If you were paying a childcare worker £10 per hour to look after your kids, so that you can go and clean someone's house for £16 per hour, which 'role' has more value to society.

People will draw their own conclusions.

If, in not paying a childcare worker, I have done that "childcare" myself for free - with the additional spin-off effect that I have 'facilitated' my husband to create over 3,000 real jobs in the U.K. economy, from graduate internships to directors (including female directors on salaries like £250k), then what? Should I have told him to limit himself to a 37 hour week max and I would do the same? Oh and definitely to not get any ideas if earning too much more than me. Would that have benefitted 'society' overall?

Now that I am back working for myself part-time, do I suddenly have more "value" to society than 6 months ago when I was a SAHM? As if!

Do you not understand paying taxes via income is benefitting society

So of course now you are working again you are more of a benefit to society than when you were a SAHM.

Also going out to work for £16 an hour and paying for child care, that's a double benefit to society, as it's benefitting taxes and the wider economy

It's worse when the ones who couldn't afford to live without their husbands' income 'sneer' at women who are on benefits.

If a household has X amount coming in, then I think the tax should be the same whether one person is earning it or two. So I'm not opposed to tax breaks for sahp. Unless the govt wants to treat adults in relationships as separate entities in all circumstances, such as benefits claims.

@iabr you are replacing your role as a SAHM with yourself as a person. Your role, like all, has or hasn't a benefit or otherwise to society. That's not a judgement on your value as a person.

@iabr but there you go again.... why does that additional spin off you describe necessitate you not working?

Nothing against you not working if that's the set up which suits you and your dh, but you're conflating being a SAHM with all sorts of other things!

Just enjoy being a SAHM because it's what you and your dh have chosen.

Yes, definitely some hypocrisy going on with that.

Not everyone who works pays tax. Some wages are topped up by the taxes of higher rate tax payers, some of whom might have a sahw facilitating them to work in a role that allows them to earn enough to pay higher rate tax

As a sahp I don't mind if you think it has no value - I just ask not to be personally insulted. Sahp like wohp, are not an homogeneous mass and @HailAdrian are no more likely to 'sneer' at single parents on benefits than wohp. Or are you saying that if wohp sneer that's somehow more acceptable?

I am pretty sure my wedding vows said 'for richer for poorer'.

We are living as one unit.

This is true. Indeed, you can be working at a net cost to society because you either pay no tax and NI or any you do pay is less than the cost of the childcare subsidy your work entitles you to. There's no guarantee that staying in work in these circumstances will lead to you earning more and paying more into the pot later, either.

No, not everyone who works pays taxes and I really wish the NMW was a lot higher ... that's a whole other thread!

But a lot of those jobs which are low paid and topped up are absolutely essential to keep society running smoothly and therefore they do have an objective value.

Well it would be less hypocritical.

People on low incomes who are subsidised do pay tax...

Well it would be less hypocritical
Only if that wohp was a net contributor themselves.

Depends what they earn as to whether they pay tax.
Years ago I was a pt childminder. Never paid tax because I wasn't working enough to meet the threshold.

@TheKeatingFive
It feels you are dissecting my posts to fit what you want to say.
Of course I am aware of the greater impact in having women out of the workplace to look after the children.
As I said my issue is that despite it being acknowledged pretty much universally that it is just a part of deeper long standing problems with society and how women and men are viewed differently it only seems to be SAHM who are expected to feel accountable.

In none of the cases that you use as a comparison point is anyone stepping back from the workforce in order to facilitate someone else's rise within it.
In fact MIL retired early to help SIL out, FIL had already retired.
Yes, they've made that decision in order to help their daughter but the byproduct is her DH's career has been able to progress unhindered. He's had two promotions since they've had DC,

"@iabr but there you go again.... why does that additional spin off you describe necessitate you not working?"

Because not every husband works fixed hours in a given place? Because some husbands travel a lot? Because the benefit (to our family) of my extra income is less significant than the hassle and cost of having to pay for a nanny? Because I wanted to SAH and my husband understands and appreciates the benefits of this?

Frame it another way - why WOULD we want to pay someone else to care for our children? It's not compulsory, you know.