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!

@sensinggettingcloser ok, call it 'earning' or 'time spent earning the saving' or whatever if it makes you feel better. It's just semantics.

Your comment about 'society not valuing it' was perhaps misleading in implying that there ought to be some sort of monetary payment (not sure who from?) for doing these tasks.

The cleaning example was to illustrate a point. There is a lot of extrapolation on this thread. Nowhere did I suggest lots of people have cleaners.

I would love to see just a bit more respect for women who stay at home to raise their children. I have seen the dreadful stress women in the workplace have experienced trying to work and raise DC at the same time. As a society, why can't we value the process of nurturing children in the home?

SAHMs do not earn money. That is the reality of the situation. If there was more honesty about recognising that as the huge privilege that it is I think SAHM would attract a lot less negative commentary.

@sensinggettingcloser I raised this point earlier on the thread.

What does 'valuing and respecting' SAHM look like?
I mean, obviously no one should be insulting other people for their life choices (and that goes both ways) but aside from that, surely the value and respect comes from yourself and your partner because you've mutually agreed that you're working as a team to organise your lives in the way you want?

It really doesn't affect anyone outside of that

@the7Vabo I'd qualify your point slightly- the privilege is in having the choice. And choices work both ways. I could have been a SAHM (and in fact would have been no worse off financially in the short term because our childcare costs were the same as my salary!) I chose to continue working- which is just as much a privilege as choosing not to

Interesting debating point you make about who should value. It actually goes back to the ancient Greek philosophers (and probably before, sorry to go all 'philosophical') with Plato suggesting a society should raise its children by using qualified elders - and not necessarily the parents - who can raise the children in the best way, morally and for the best of society.
(Apologies for the digression. Something which interests me).

Yes agree the privilege is having the choice. I was commenting on the OP circumstances - she is has made clear it was a choice while also acknowledging not everyone has that choice.

A couple of recent posters said that Sahps do earn. I don't understand this. Earning involves money. How are you earning when you're not being paid? Do you mean you're performing tasks at home? But everyone does that.

If you want to frame it as earnings you need to accept the idea that someone is paying the wage. You really can't have it both ways.

It’s an interesting debate. I often hear that SAHM make a valuable contribution to society. They may make a valuable contribution to their own household but I don’t see the value to society expect in the case of babies & toddlers. In cases of fully able children with access to adequate childcare I would think the way the economy is designed working women make a bigger contribution to society by paying into the tax pot. The world is overpopulated, no one needs to have more children. I think instead of “valuing the contribution of SAHMs” we should focus on having greater flexibility in workplaces so that women can work & spend more time with their kids - work but be able to do the school pick up etc.

If you are looking after kids while your spouse works, then you are directly earning the cost of the childcare that you would otherwise be paying. With the advantage of not having to find back up care if the kids are sick or during holidays. It does have a financial worth.

I don't see that as having less intrinsic value than having a pt job instead.
Money need to be earned, kids need to be looked after - how couples choose to divvy that up doesn't equate to moral superiority or inferiority. And it's clear that within the relationships themselves, there are pluses and minuses for both parties.
Terms like 'living off a man' are negatively loaded, however much some posters might like to pretend they are just being factual. It's a disingenuous claim. The OP chose to title her thread with this phrase because those are the words that have been levelled at her in previous threads.

@the7Vabo I don't really see why 'babies and toddlers' has anything to do with it. There is no definitive evidence to show that (all things being equal) children who have a SAHP for 1,3, 5, 18 or any number of years have better outcomes than those who don't. And it's outcomes which have value (or not!) to society.

I'm feeling a sense of deja vu because this was discussed earlier in the thread. The cost to society of poor or neglectful parenting is huge. Therefore society values children who are raised in a healthy, positive way. But that can be done (or not) by SAHP and WOHP

Without being disrespectful, I'm genuinely curious as to what SAHMs think I as a member of society who is not married to them should be valuing.
There is never really an answer to this, other than that bringing up children well is important. But as SAHMs are apparantly not claiming you need to be a SAHM to do this, it can't be that.
I am more than happy to value contributions by women, but genuinely nonplussed as to what it is.
There is a place between sneering and valuing, and that's neutrality, and I honestly think that's the best that can reasonably be expected.

So you participate productively in the conversations, but complain that we have them?

What is it a SAHP earns then? You are earning something if you earn. What is it?

Are you confusing it with "work"? Because I don't think anyone is arguing that a SAHP does "work", even if not in the employment sense. Nor is anyone saying there isn't skill involved (well, for some SAHPs anyway).

Yes there is a function - nuturing children - whihc is beneficial to society. But we have already established that woh can do this too. Unless you disagree? Otherwise the main value is to the family. Which is fair enough, and a good thing for hte individuals if that's what they want. But it doesn't confer a greater societal benefit.

i know why the OP chose that title. I also changed it to “being financially supported by your husband to be a SAHM”.
Looking after your own kids is a perfectly valid life choice within your own household. It is also a choice not open to many if not most people (outside of people who are forced to stay at home). It is also a huge privilege not to have to go outside your own household into society and slave away to make a living, deal with narky bosses, grumpy colleges, deadlines, patient safety, accounts etc etc
So while it might save on childcare it is not the same as a job or self employment where you are beholden to other people and all the responsibilities that comes with.

I can't help get the sense that someone reading all this wants to say "I'm raising my own children rather than outsourcing them to an evil insituation", but that would undermind the argument that it's woh who exclusively, apparently, do the sneering. It's pretty much the only thread like this that I've seen for a long time where this hasn't come up!

And yes, SAHM are being financed by their husbands, a man, unless of course they are in a same sex relationship, or on benefits. That's a fact, and not a judgement.

Good point.
No SAHM deserves abuse for her life choices. But neither are SAHMs making some unrecognised, valuable contribution to society.

Honestly, a much more worthwhile discussion than the tired old SAHM/WOHM divisive shit would be why it's important to value and respect GOOD parenting. Why society should value parents (not just mums) who raise their children taking care of their physical and emotional needs, supporting their education, teaching them sound values. Which like I keep saying, is done (or not) by parents where one, both or neither are working. That's the most important issue. Raising children well. That's what society should value, not the individual way your family set-up is arranged.

Have we not all been there though? I have stood with both my babies trembling handing them over to a crèche. Asking my boss and being turned down for a 3 day week. I don’t particularly want my kids in childcare as much as they are. But I don’t have that choice unless I want to push our household into a situation where our outgoings exceed our incomings.
This is why I get a bit reactive about SAHM need to be recognised etc. If you are bloody lucky enough to have the choice why not just enjoy it. And if you feel that you can’t handle people’s reactions to your choice either ignore them or go back to work.

@5128gap I'd be happy with neutrality! I accept that sah is something which benefits my family. I just don't want to be told I'm sponging off my husband or wasting my education (as if education is ever wasted), or not contributing anything to society because we aren't directly generating taxation (since all people who are decent and raising their dc to be decent are contributing to society).

What I'm doing all day isn't brain surgery or running into burning buildings to save people, but neither are lots of jobs. Not all jobs result in a contribution of tax that exceeds what an individual takes out, so working per se isn't a morally superior choice - it's one made for personal benefit, the same as sah.

I do accept that in supporting a man in the workplace, the workplace might be harder for women who don't have that support. But I guess they could ask their husbands to be sahd? And I don't think it's my job to fix that as much as society's to put in place family friendly policies.

So I'm happy to mind my own business and never criticise working parents (which I'd never do anyway) but would just like the same in return.

This is exactly how I feel.

Good parenting is valuable but unless you believe it's not possible for a working parent to do that (and can argue why providing for one's children isn't essential parenting), that's irrelevant.

I respect your choices, I respect your absolute right to do what's best for you and your situation. I'll value you as a human and as a friend, if that's what you are. But aside from that, I don't see what this "value" is or what I'm supposed to be doing to show it. It's valuable to your family, absolutely, and they should be thanking you. What am I supposed to be doing?

Re the privilege pov - sahm are constantly told about their vulnerability, so is something a privilege if the majority deem it the be disadvantageous or don't want to do it themselves even if they had the choice?