'I do all these things AND work FT'

[Bumpitybumper]

I see this on Mumsnet a lot but have just experienced it in real life. I have two friends (A&B). Friend A is a SAHM to school age kids and Friend B works FT in quite a stressful job. Friend B was just lamenting that they don't understand how Friend A fills her time as she manages to work FT AND do everything Friend A does.

The thing is, Friend B has a much smaller (yet lovely) house that is pretty chaotic in fun energetic way. It is never the tidiest or cleanest but it's not disgusting either. Friend A on the other hand has a much bigger house that is pretty immaculate most of the time. Friend A does all the school runs and volunteers at school. Friend B needs wraparound care in order to get to work so drops her kids of at 8 and collects around 17:30. Friend A cooks amazing meals for her family, has her children's friends round for fun playdates and activities and is generally incredibly on top of everything. Friend B is understandably more stretched and isn't in the position to cook lavish meals every day of the week or have friends round when she's at work. Friend B's husband does a lot (of course absolutely fair and right) so she doesn't have to attend every parents evening, sew all the badges for extracurricular clubs or assist with all the homework etc. Friend A does pretty much all of that as husband works such long hours.

I actually think both are amazing and very productive people that channel their energy, time and talent in different channels. I just struggle to understand though how Friend B can't appreciate that she isn't doing the same as Friend A or at least doing it to the same standard. Before people suggest I'm Friend A, I have my own business so don't really fit in either camp but used to be a SAHM so I guess can see Friend A's efforts more.

AIBU to think that Friend B is a bit deluded?

*Women, although Omen is an interesting typo…

I was A for many years. The best person to care for my children was me. My family benefited. The house was not a show home because that was not how we lived (small holding). I've had conversations with my now adult children about how, looking back, they felt about me being home and they have said they knew they were my priority and there was a feeling of security that went with it even as they grew older.

Yes I grew as much of our food as I could and made almost everything we ate. We had a lifestyle that wouldn't have been achievable had I not stayed home.

I never worried about childcare or running out of leave if the children were ill. If they were ill they stayed home with me and were mothered. They were very secure and content kids who have said they had a brilliant childhood and would like any children they may have to have the same.

I did what was best for MY family just like everyone does regardless of whether they stay home or not. I have no interest in what anyone may think and if I was judged as being 'less' than another mother that could only come from insecurity.

Working parents are still reliant on each other

Well yes, DH will pick the kids up today so I don't have to. But if he turned abusive, I would not need to stay because I have no income of my own and I cannot feed and house my DC without his salary. Slight difference.

This thread is quite a sad read. So many women posting in a defensive way, or trying to prove something in their explanations about working or not working. What do you need to prove? What do you need other people to say? Why do you need anyone to agree with you? Just live your lives and stop pointless comparisons. No two families are the same and no two women are the same so ask yourself what you are looking for here. Who cares what you think your doing or not doing?

I'm assuming that friend B meant that she has the same responsibilities as friend A, plus a full time job. Not that she does them in the same way.

And yep, being a SAHM once the kids are at school is very different from the early years, with regard to time to fill and how one chooses to fill it.

It's not about what the daughters want, that wasn't my question. It was more about what the mothers who choose to SAH want for their own daughters and grandchildren?

@Alana1983

That's also an interesting question. I want the same for my daughters and granddaughters as my parents wanted for me - namely choice. I had an expensive education which qualified me to enter a high-powered professional career. However, I also had the choice not to pursue that career. I have given my own DC a similarly expensive education (in fact, the most expensive education it's possible to have in this country), and they are all set up to have successful careers. However, if they want to be SAHPs, that's fine. If they want to do a menial job, that's fine. What they have is choices. The real problems arise when people have no choice - a SAHM who would rather be working, or a WOHM who hates her job and would rather be at home, or a woman in a high-powered job who'd rather be making bracelets and selling them on Etsy are all people who have no choices. Children who grow up in poverty or with parents who don't value education or who assume that living on benefits is just a way of life are condemned to have no choices more or less from birth. Money obviously gives you more choices.

My DDs aim to be SAHMs because their experience was a happy childhood with a mother who enjoyed being with them and who had the financial wherewithal to do so. They have seen their friends' mothers who are exhausted by trying to do everything, and they don't like the look of it. Several of their friends have come to me for emotional support over the years because their own parents haven't been there when they've needed them. My DDs don't want that for their potential children.

In terms of the OP's Friend A and Friend B, though, I'm not sure what the point is of setting them up as SAHM vs WOHM. SAHM does not mean "halo-polishing batch cooking cleaning freak" any more than WOHM means "shit mother who can't sew a badge on".

@Walkaround

I certainly agree that the argy-barby about this topic on here is not constructive and it's true that working parents to some extent have to work together, even if they're no longer together.

But you're minimising the importance of a woman having access to some money on her own terms and which she doesn't rely on her husband's goodwill for. That's really really critical.

There's a big difference between a couple who are both working and have joint bank accounts and have a lot of give and take on childcare and a scenario with a working father and a career SAHM who will be up shit creek if the father decides to trade her in. It's an incredibly precarious position to put yourself and your children in and in my view the marginal trade off of being able to be at home facilitating things and making the home look nice without paying for childcare doesn't compensate for the financial and emotional risk.

Of course there's a sliding scale: not every working mum needs to berate themselves for not being a CEO or a surgeon. There are plenty of women who justifiably take the early years of their kids lives off and then slowly reenter the world of work once the children are at school. There are women who work part time all their lives in order to make life easier for their children. There are women who are independently wealthy who don't rely on their husbands and choose to volunteer. And that's all fine.

But the bare fact is that throwing all your eggs in the traditional basket of "I'll facilitate his career and raise his kids and he'll support me" is like playing Russian Roulette.

It's not about what the daughters want, that wasn't my question. It was more about what the mothers who choose to SAH want for their own daughters and grandchildren?

I can only speak for my own mother, who gave up a glittering career to become a SAHM and desperately desperately regretted it.

She loved us and loved being a mother but she basically spent the last 35 years of her life torturing herself for letting go of her career and she hammered into me that above all else in life I must never allow myself to become wholly dependent on a man for money.

I've had conversations with my now adult children about how, looking back, they felt about me being home and they have said they knew they were my priority and there was a feeling of security that went with it even as they grew older.

If you have a dh, and he worked, do your children also believe they were not his priority and felt less secure as a result? This is the kind of comment that bothers me - the sneering implication that working parents do not prioritise their children and provide them with security. The reality is that if you asked most children of working parents how they felt about it, they'd likely look confused and reply that it was just normal. As I suspect the grown up children of sah parents would also say it was just normal - they neither feel they benefited (that is your inference, probably instilled by your own beliefs and values over the years) nor suffered particularly. They have nothing to compare it to.

Indeed. Show me a thread where men try to compete against one another in this way. We're our own worst enemies.

I've also had conversations with my now adult children about their childhood and how they felt about having two parents who loved them beyond measure, knew the children were the absolutely most important thing in life, and also worked outside the home.

The thread wasn't intended to be about whether A is doing 'worthwhile' stuff and how we assign value to different activities. I think it has morphed into that because many who agree with B would argue that the things A does in addition to B aren't really of any importance and therefore don't really count.

We it depends how you frame the question. Is B running her house and bringing up her children to a reasonable level? Yes she is, so in that sense she's doing the same thing. A is doing 'more' household stuff and cooking, but that kind of Mrs Hinch style cleaning becomes closer to a hobby than a necessary function, so doing 'more' makes little sense as something for B concede.

Nothing wrong with what A is doing, but I feel that B is fundamentally right in her assessment.

This gives me hope. One day my ND dd will understand how we battled and battled at every hurdle to ensure she was supported throughout education and life generally to reach her potential, no matter how bad and how difficult things became at times and how the system was stacked against us but we fought on regardless. Despite working outside the home. My favourite saying to both our dc is "I would give you my last breath". It's true and it seems to be something that really resonates with them in terms of being secure in my love for them.

Unfortunately though, it’s families where the vast majority of the time the woman earns significantly less than her husband. To the extent that childcare may actually cost more than she brings in, especially if it’s for more than one child. Which, as we all know, is this negative feedback loop which means they earn less. Yes, you can protest “But won’t someone think of their pension and contribution to society etc…” As if these things never cross their mind. Many are understandably short-sighted about the future and just trying to do what’s best financially for their family right now. Especially in the current climate. Not all women are high earners whose salaries can cover so much more than childcare.

I don’t think it’s helpful being so disparaging. I think it was also your username above a comment about them being afraid of their husband running off. On the other end of the spectrum of SAHMs admittedly, do you honestly think all SAHMs would be destitute and that they haven’t thought to put provisions in place like private pensions? I took some time out when I became a mum but I had been a senior manager since quite young, had made maximum pension contributions since my first pay packet and in the habit of saving since childhood. I was also married and we were in the fortunate position to afford this. I know three SAHMs in my area who have passive income from their own property and investments. Yes, of course this isn’t always the case and I completely understand my and their privilege, especially in comparison to less fortunate SAHMs - through necessity rather than choice. This is why I think we should take a bit more of a nuanced, empathetic view.

I understand your point and agree to a certain extent but if I'm honest the family does benefit from the majority of what she does in quite tangible ways.

The husband gets the obvious benefit of being able to focus on his career in the knowledge that the house and children are being well managed. He has a career that simply couldn't be done in a more 50:50 setup and as much as you can argue the rights and wrongs of this, he trained very hard and worked many years to get where he is and it would be a huge sacrifice for him to give this up because more was expected of him at home. B's DH is not able to pursue their careers in such a focussed manner because they are having to drop things to pick up poorly children or make sure they're available by a certain to collect the kids. I would say that this has certainly impacted B's earning potential as he had the opportunity to work in London with a hefty pay rise but couldn't take the job as he couldn't make the hours and commute work with his family commitments. Again, I must reiterate that I'm not saying that it is great that father's can pursue career completed unencumbered by children but it is hard to argue that A's husband hasn't benefited from her being at home.

Her kids also don't have to go to wraparound care and holiday clubs when they don't want to. I have dragged my kids to clubs because I NEED them there and I'm sure B has done the same. A has the time to facilitate extracurricular activities that require high levels of commitment to take seriously. B has a child into the same hobby as one of A's kids but A is able to take her child to proper accredited classes in the evenings whilst B simply can't do this. I don't know if anything will come of this hobby and whether it will make a difference in the long terms, but B's child has told my child that they are envious of A's child going to these classes. A also has the time to thoroughly go through homework with each of her children and I would say it does make a difference as her kids are in the top groups for everything and seem to have mastered things like timestables and reading in a way that is hard to achieve without parental input. If course they could just be naturally super intelligent but I think her input has certainly helped.

I could elaborate further but my point is that the family definitely do directly benefit from what A does. I know not everything she does is objectively beneficial for the family but I think it's misleading to ignore the advantages of what she does.

To be fair, it doesn't happen with men because they are largely expected to continue as normal when they become fathers which isn't the same at all when a woman becomes a mother.

It's there because of the pressure women are put under in society when they become mothers which men simply don't experience.

No one asked my husband if he was going to back to work after becoming a father
No one judged my husband for going back to work after becoming a father
No one says that my husband doesn't raise his child because he works full time
No one calls my husband selfish for working full time as a father

etc

I think this is a bit of a tricky argument.

There are definitely people that work in roles that unequivocally greatly benefit society. There are very many other people though that work in roles that don't really add much value to society and on some cases actively harm it.

For example, take the vape stores that have opened up and down the country. The people that work there may well work hard but is what they are doing benefitting society in anyway? What about the people that work for tax evading companies like Amazon? They have decimated the high street and have a questionable environmental impact so are they good for society? What about ambulance chaser lawyers or those working for Klarna? The list is literally endless. My own business is serving a purpose and helping to grow the economy but many don't like it and consider it detrimental to society in some ways. I imagine some would argue that they would rather I stayed as SAHM than expand an industry they are not hugely comfortable with.

I do get what you're saying and I think our viewpoints are beginning to converge (good outcome to a thread!) And in particular I'm glad that you mentioned the benefit to A's dh first. Because he's the main beneficiary in A's setup.

But personally I really, really wouldn't want such an imbalance in my marriage. It's true that my dh now earns more than me and I work PT (two jobs totalling 3.5/4 days pw). He's "fortunate" that his skills are more lucrative than mine although we have the same degree - he's in software, I'm in teaching.

But would I want to have less of a career so he can have a better one? Would I want him to do none of the pickups and drop offs, none of the home made curries, none of the sewing, none of the braiding of dd's hair (my dh does the best French braids)?? No.

I'm of the very strong opinion that my dd, and B's children, benefit hugely from having a dad who sews their badges and braid their hair and does nursery/school drop offs.

I think the benefit of an all-rounded, present, father figure absolutely outweighs the benefit of an immaculate living room or even an extra-curricular activity and I will die on this hill lol...! (And this is coming from someone who had a single mum myself and no dad at all.)

I completely agree. But with all of that context, women should be better at supporting one another's decisions, precisely because they are under more pressure than fathers.

I don't think anything will change without societal change as a whole.

I can't support something I don't believe benefits society, though I suspect I would feel differently if it was just as likely for a man to be a SAHP or go part time. The problem I have is the pressure it puts on women who don't want to give up their careers.

I wouldn’t say this out loud, but as an exhausted working mum, I think it’s potentially a very smart decision to marry a rich man and give up work. As long as you’re married, and you’ve got your own cash to pay for a lawyer, he’s going to have a tough time screwing you over without paying for it - you can pull all the ‘I sacrificed my career’ stuff, which is rubbish as this thread shows how many women were chomping at the bit to give up work, but it works.

Ironically I know a woman who’s been absolutely stung on divorce as a result of slogging her guts out to maintain a high-flying career.

I can't support something I don't believe benefits society, though I suspect I would feel differently if it was just as likely for a man to be a SAHP or go part time. The problem I have is the pressure it puts on women who don't want to give up their careers.

It’s true. The most unsupportive men I work with all have SAHWs. They’re terrible to work with as a working mum - they’re bitter because of a life spent at the corporate grindstone funding a family they don’t get to participate in, and they don’t like working mums because they don’t see why you should get any flexibility to see your children when they don’t.

But I guess we all look out for number one and from the perspective of the mum I think it’s potentially a winner.

This thought hit me yesterday after a friend sent me a TikTok video of a craft thing she was doing for Christmas
'Half of us are running around so busy that we can't eat, can't go to the toilet, drink coffee like no tomorrow, throw ourselves at the doors of public transport because we can't miss another morning meeting, and the other half are turning dried orange slices into tiny festive fox faces to put into Christmas pot pouri trays'

Basically neither sides are happy. Side one (which I am a member of) are stressed, drink too much, feel guilty, feel not present, constantly apologise and feel like we're losing all the time. Side two feel the same guilt, shame, frustration but because society doesn't value them and they've lost power in their relationships. Society values me as a working mother but not if I don't hit all the other unrealistic targets set for me. Society wants me to have time to make fox faces whilst also progressing in my career, having a healthy marriage, be a loving ever present mother. No one can do all of this!

@Bumpitybumper

The husband gets the obvious benefit of being able to focus on his career in the knowledge that the house and children are being well managed. He has a career that simply couldn't be done in a more 50:50 setup and as much as you can argue the rights and wrongs of this, he trained very hard and worked many years to get where he is and it would be a huge sacrifice for him to give this up because more was expected of him at home.

I'm sorry.... and let me be very clear at the outset that I have no problem with women choosing to take a step back from their careers....

But can you not see how inherently sexist that paragraph is? Why is it assumed that its always a "terrible sacrifice" for the man to give up a career he's trained for but not a woman? And why should his career be facilitated by a woman making this life as frictionless as possible?

I work 60+ hours a week and there is no one who stays at home to "facilitate" me focusing on my career. Why should it be taken as read that this man and his enormously important job gets that perk?

Of course there will be families where that role falls to the man and it suits the woman to choose not to work. And fair enough. But no one bemoans the fact that the children of this man are not getting to see him because he works 80 hours a week. Why the disparity?

This, I would suggest, is what people like Friend B find so irritating. That a man with a Big Job always seems incapable of running his life without a woman flapping around to make everything as comfortable as possible for him. No such advantage is ever handed to women with Big Jobs.

I understand it's a decision made largely because it is believed it benefits the individual family which I could absolutely get behind if we all lived on individual islands and our choices had no effects on society.

I have no issues with it on a micro level, my concern is looking at it on a macro level.

I hear you about unsupportive men with SAHM's. I work in a male dominated industry and it is incredibly hard competing with men who have a woman at home facilitating their career.