For thinking SAHMs are making themselves financially vulnerable

[PeasOff]

Would or do you depend on your partner financially?

Do you have a backup in place in case of breakup or for your retirement?

Yes I was good at what I did and made significant career progress before I took five years out. Why does the fact that I worked very hard to achieve that in any way diminish it? Of course I wouldn't have progressed as I did if I hadn't worked really hard. What disingenuous rubbish you spout!

If we look at our choices as we do investments, then whatever decision we make will pay off or become a regret, except that of course, we will never know what life had been had we taken other options.

I chosen to be a working mum whilst trying to do the best I could fir my kids and overall, I really think it's paid off. My eldest told me recently that she was grateful because I hadn't messed up their lives, which I guess is a compliment meaning I made the right choice! My you gest would say the sane but I do think he would have benefited more from me at least working PT and getting more attention.

But all in all, I'm so grateful to have continued to work FT. I am now in a comfortable financial position, work skills and experience that means I can negotiate flexible work patterns and I can envisage early retirement. This is such an nice position to be in. No anxiety or worry about my and my children's future.

SAHMs might feel exactly the same once their kids have grown up. Secure and happy and confident they made the right choice for them and their children.

SAHMs might feel exactly the same once their kids have grown up. Secure and happy and confident they made the right choice for them and their children.

Well, yes, they might, in regard to childrearing. But isn't this thread about the financially vulnerable place women can find themselves in when, for example, a spouse dumps them for a younger model, or dies abruptly...?

Of course, in MNland, everyone breezes back into a fabulous well-paying career at 45 or 55, but in reality a lot of women find themselves so far out of the loop they are unable to get back in, even at a far lower level than when they were in their twenties, or in some cases at all.

Of course, in MNland, everyone breezes back into a fabulous well-paying career at 45 or 55

Aren’t those ages a bit out? I doubt if many SAHMs wait that long to go back. If you have your first baby at 30 (average age) you’re hardly likely to wait till they’re 25 before returning to your career!

@howmanypets

Of course they were about sahms. I'd class anyone as being out of work for longer than 1 year if they have small children a sahp. Or we could just say unemployed?

@StoneSquirrel

Yeah, I think its you who is disingenuous. Weird eh?

Aren’t those ages a bit out? I doubt if many SAHMs wait that long to go back.

Did you miss the bit about divorce or death of a spouse? Many SAHMs never go back. Or events may overtake them before the time they planned or imagined they would go back. Plus I guess maths is not a strong suit, as a woman of 45 who had her first baby at 30, as you say, assuming she had just the one, would have a fourteen year old to raise... And again, at whatever age, having not got around to resuming their brilliant career, many women find themselves on the rough side financially after a divorce.

Maths is a strong suit but I chose your more extreme example! I agree there are women who don’t go back and may find themselves in a precarious position. However, posters up thread (and you can’t get more MNland than that) speaking of their own personal experiences, did go back within a reasonable timeframe and were able to resume their previous careers or new careers.

Well life’s a big old lottery really isn’t it? Redundancy / divorce / Ill health. We all muddle along. Most women in my set (not all though) took a few years out and were back working again early 40s no harm done. But yes all degree educated and successful pre kids so getting back in easier.

Also there’s a real skill shortage in some areas atm maybe Brexit who knows. My friend who was a planner gave up when her now 18 year old was born did some fundraising part time jobs but been welcomed back to planning with open arms. Got the pick of several jobs on her terms. Likewise teaching in a shortage subject another friend got her training paid for by the government. Seems society needs these women and their skills!

@MsTSwift

Seems society needs these women and their skills!

Huh.

Ya think?!

Indeed 2/3 of people returning to work after a career break find themselves in considerably lower paid jobs. But MN anecdata trumps that.

Topgub - those articles were not remotely about SAHMs. The first was about single mums and low income families. No mention whatsoever of the proportion of low income families that have SAHMs! The second was just was just about issues of workplace flexibility in general.

Dinosauratemydaffodils - that's more relevant, thanks.

The problem on these threads is that people have so very much to say about SAHMs being financially vulnerable and the threads go on and on, but not once does anyone stop to define what they're even talking about!

If you define a SAHM as a woman taking one year out, well loads of women do this. I would imagine "one year SAHMs" are represented in all income demographics. But if you're taking about SAHMs of five, ten years or more, the circumstances relating to 'financial vulnerability' will be totally different because these are more likely to be higher net worth families (ie. don't need two incomes). Or there may be specific reasons for SAH such as a child with additional needs.

Asking "are SAHMs financially vulnerable" is a nonsense question. Just as if you asked "are WOHMs financially vulnerable?" Who, why, what, where?

For the most part, women who are SAHMs for a longer time will not be in low-income / net worth families. So even though they may have to financially adjust following a divorce, they still wouldn't be classed as 'financially vulnerable' on a national level when you take into account they many working women have few assets anyway.

So when you ask, "Are SAHMs financially vulnerable" you also need to define in relation to whom? Women in average wages? Women on minimum wage?

There are no "stats" on the demographics of SAHMs of over one year. How many are in high net worth families; how many are low net worth families; what areas are SAHMs concentrated in, etc. So it's impossible to answer the question "Are SAHMs financially vulnerable?"

"The stats" or the census show that roughly 70% of women in the U.K. are working at any one time. But how many of these are part-time or in zero hours contracts, is unclear. And of the 30% or so not working, there is no info about whether they are SAHMs, actively seeking employment or anything about their financial circumstances.

@howmanypets

The save the children article specifically mentioned sahms. I'm not sure why you're denying that.

And the govt article was about how to improve poverty, a section of which spike about how sahms were more likely to ne in poverty

I'm not sure why you're wedded to this idea that most sahms come from well off families when it's just not true.

Most sahms are sahms because they can't afford childcare as evidenced by the save the children article

To ignore the financial implications of not working for extended periods of time seems a bit daft.

The gender pay gap / the glass ceiling all evidence of how not working impacts women disproportionately.

Like I've said already, I dont think its as simple as sahm are always more vulnerable, they're clearly not.

It doesn't change the wider, societal issues

"I'm not sure why you're wedded to this idea that most sahms come from well off families when it's just not true.

Most sahms are sahms because they can't afford childcare as evidenced by the save the children article"

The article did not say most SAHMs are anything though.

Im not saying "most" SAHMs are from well off families or low income families. I'm saying, nobody knows the proportions. Unless there are meaningful stats, it's all speculation.

@howmanypets

We do know the proportions.

As you even said yourself, for other reasons like a disabled child.

Most sahms aren't well off, well educated career women taking a career break because they just love little Johnny far too much

They make up a proportion, sure. But not the majority.

And no, I don't have stats but my bet is that most career women don't take much time out in the first place.

Being a sahm because you're uneducated, young, would only ever be able to work in a mw is probably only slightly less vulnerable than keeping working in the mw wage job.

We need to ne be doing more to make women less vulnerable regardless of the choices they make

But that means tackling sexism and I'm not sure (especially going by these threads) very many are interested.

@Topgub what kind of language is that "well off, well educated women taking a career break because they just love little Johnny far too much." Disgusting. What is wrong with someone making a choice to stay at home with their child if they can and want to? Feminism is all about women having choices. And it is flying in the face of that to be sneering at other women just because their circumstances and choices are different from your own.

@StoneSquirrel

Its not my language.

Similar has been used throughout the thread.

Feminsm is absolutely not about women having choices. Its about equality between the sexes. Which we don't have.

because its not someone making the 'choice' to stay home with their child. Its women.

But we've been through all this already and it never seems to sink in so....

@Topgub it is your language. You wrote it.

How can you say that feminism is absolutely not about women having choices? Equality is just a word unless it opens up opportunities and freedom of choice. That's what really matters. And being all judgy-pants about people making different choices from your own gets nobody anywhere.

@StoneSquirrel

Because its not.

Feminsm has never been about 'giving women choices'. Its always been about equality.

It only started being about giving women choices when some women wanted to keep chosing the sexist choice.

Women already had the choice to be sahms. So why would feminism have anything to do with 'opening' up that choice?

It already existed. It still does. No one is stopping you from making that choice.

It does nothing to promote equality so its not a feminist choice but you're free to make it.

I wrote it because that's often what women say in many paraphrased ways. Hardly disgusting.

Topgub

"We do know the proportions."

No we do not.

When you or anyone can post actual stats on SAHM demographics, then we will know.

Indeed 2/3 of people returning to work after a career break find themselves in considerably lower paid jobs

How much of that is a choice though? A couple of US studies touched on that as a conscious choice (I accept it's a relatively low percentage). Professional women from "male dominated" careers choosing on their return to work to go into lower paid more female coded work for a variety of reasons (which included working hours/culture) or just opting out all together. Pre pandemic, my intention was to retrain as a social worker for example which would have had lower earning potential than my previous employment.

From looking at the studies, I think they need more research. Why do most men in Iceland take shared parental leave and yet barely any UK men do? Is it culture/peer pressure or something else entirely. Separating types of Sahm out would help too. What might help a 23 year old mother of two with limited education into work and what would encourage someone like me are likely to be very different things. Single mums again will have different challenges and giving teeth to the CSA (or whatever its currently called) would help both pulling vulnerable children out of poverty and helping their mums return to work. Also better maternity care to help prevent birth injuries and access to mother and baby units (had I been able to get support with ds much earlier on I might still be a tax payer). With the knock on effect that if women have less to recover from, they might be much keener to share parental leave.

It's very much a multi faceted problem and one I don't think Governments have spent anywhere near enough addressing. Although with the number of vacancies in my old department not to mention everywhere else, perhaps they'll get creative.

@Dinosauratemydaffodils

I'm betting most of those reaons will be to do with childcare.

Which comes down to sexist ideals of women being the pcg.

Its a huge factor in the gender pay gap.

"Feminism has never been about 'giving women choices'. Its always been about equality."

Change the record fgs!

What is it you actually want Topgub? Do you essentially want a world where all couples are like you and your DH - working opposite shifts to each other? Or all couples working the same hours as each other because it's 'equal.?' Is that it? All there is to life. The great world vision?

It won't happen because that is too limiting. Most families want to get ahead in life. Most families want more for their kids than they had themselves. The families that get ahead are those that can adapt best to the opportunities available to them, not just plod along doing fixed hours for set salaries for no other reason than 'equality,.' So what if you both work the same hours for similar money if you're still poor? Who wants to be stuck like that if they don't need to be?

If you had a husband who could earn a lot of money if he went abroad to work for a few years, would you up sticks and go? Or would you tell him to stay put and keep plodding away at the same thing, so that you can also keep doing more of the same because it has to be 'equal?' Or would you see it as an opportunity and seize it?

Reminds me off those communists who got very frustrated with the workers who kept making the “wrong” choices. Us pesky women that keep making choices that benefit ourselves and our families rather than adhering to randoms worthy principles - must be terribly frustrating for the feminist purists!

@howmanypets

Presumptuous much? 🤣

Your sexism and dare I say elitism is showing.

My record is fine thanks, I dont need to change it

@Topgub your over-simplified brand of feminism reminds me of the views of a fifteen year-old school friend more than thirty years ago. She grew up though.