'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?

Giving up work when you're independently wealthy is a totally different from giving up work with the hope that another person (who in the vast majority of cases is just living paycheck to paycheck) will support you for the rest of your life.

You obviously don’t know people with fulfilling careers then?

On a basic level, I think every human would like to not have to work, regardless of their gender. But that would only be if they could still have the same income and level of satisfaction. For example, if I was still paid my monthly salary and pension contribution whether I turned up for work or not, no questions asked, I wouldn’t work. But I would still contribute to society in other ways, I’d offer free tutoring (which I can normally charge up to £35/hour for) to people who can’t normally afford tutoring. I’d possibly set up my own business related to this, so I could set my own hours and work as much or little as I wanted.
However, I wouldn’t do any of this without my own income stream.

My perspective is definitely that most people I know who are SAHP are not particularly wealthy, their partners earn a low to average wage, and universal credit funds the rest.
Although they tend to enragingly call themselves “full time mummies” rather that SAHM’s.

We have a frequent discussion in the staff room as to what we would do if we won the lottery (we are teachers)

Consensus is that we would all go down to two or three days. None of us actually want to quit, despite the fact that we fantasise about quitting most days.

Our team is fairly young (I’d imagine our average age is mid 30s) and fairly evenly split between men and women. Roughly even numbers of people with no kids, people with young kids, and people with grown up kids.

differ strokes for different folks. You’re a teacher aren’t you? I wouldn’t find that fulfilling at all.

You wouldn't find being of huge use to society, educating children in the subject you love and know very well,very fulfilling. Ok then. I guess you also wouldn't find being a nurse or Dr fulfilling. Or any job that makes a real difference. Social worker?
Maybe you'd prefer to be a banker?

I agree that some level of employment is good on many levels (not just financially) and I believe there's quite a bit of evidence to support that.

The thing that makes me is the lack of consistency with posters who claim not working is preferable for a mum:

'I'm a SAHM and it's the best thing in the world; I'm so lucky my dh can support me'

'What about your dh? If it's the best thing in the world, doesn't he want a slice of it?'
*
'Oh no, he's far too busy with his Big Job, and he's really really happy working all hours in his Big Job'*

Lizzy, see also: working mothers are abandoning their children and barely get to see them. It's just not possible to work and be an involved parent.
-What about your DH with Big Job then, who as you say is way too busy to even help out withone single school run or sick day?
-He's the most amazing involved father!

So many women on here falling over themselves to be 'worthier than thou' or to speak for all women. Just get over it, really. There is no such thing as 'what all women want,' or 'what all women should want.' If you're not maternal, you do you. If you love your job, you do you. If you want to be with your kids, you do you. If you don't want kids, you do you. Just stop labouring under a delusion that you are somehow 'the norm' or you know better. You really don't.

I don't think women should have to give up any of their maternity leave either but I do believe it is women focused to have a policy that offers men more than 2 weeks of paternity leave as well as benefiting men and children.

With the current setup, it is very difficult to prevent the woman becoming the default parent, naturally doing more around the house because she is home for up to a year if going back to work and it becomes difficult to move away from that setup once she does go back to work.

With a new setup which offers men anywhere up to 6 months off to take within the first year, it would encourage both parents to be hands on during the first year as well as workplaces now knowing that it is both parents that can now take some time off after the birth of a child which means it would be harder to discriminate against women in the workplace.

It would be beneficial all around including improving equality.

It is important to acknowledge that not all women identify as feminists. For some women, prioritising their marriages and families takes precedence over political beliefs (Feminism) and materialistic values. Achieving true equality, wealth, and power is nothing but a fantasy. It is possible that the world functions the way it does because, honestly speaking, it works.
It isn't the patriarchy that undermines women, it's other women.

@SouthLondonMum22 absolutely.

How does it work?

Sorry I forgot who wrote what but in response to some replies that stood out

I would give up working if I won Euromillions but I must not have a career and be in a deprived area? Goodness me. I actually have a vocation and there’s a recruitment crisis and I’m a leader so have some influence. So would my husband who’s also a leader. I love my job and its “moral purpose” is undeniable but I struggle with how it has taken me away from my own children (and my husband who I often forget about!!) far too many times, despite having firm boundaries and always being very conscious to model balance to colleagues. Sorry if that makes me a bad feminist. (I don’t really care.)

There was also a reply about men being portrayed as useless on MN. This is obviously unacceptable but my concern is a more insidious form of this which starts when children are very young babies. It might be something as small as an otherwise very supportive and attentive father not feeling as confident as a mother bathing a newborn baby or perhaps the mother is better at settling them at bedtime, according to him. All these little things add up and the result is a tale as old as time: the mother is the main caregiver. So I would love to see fathers having an extended paternity which, if not taken up, is lost. This would help I’m sure.

Also some very valid points about feminism. I’m sure many women don’t set out to be a sahm and circumstances lead to it eg earning less than childcare costs for more than one child. I like to think I’m a feminist but if push came to shove and we had a tricky situation such as a financial one I’d have to be a not so good feminist. I’m aware it perpetuates a patriarchal set up which I’d be unhappy with. Life isn’t black or white.

@Missamyp, if a woman thinks women should have equal status in law, continue to exist as a separate legal and financial entity after marriage, not automatically have to cede custody to her ex-husband on divorce, be able to vote, should be paid the same as men for the same job, have the same access to education and the workplace as boys and men, should not be assumed to have given blanket consent to sex on marriage etc, she is a feminist, regardless of what her own confused or ill-informed ideas about feminism are.

The family and marriage are not some apolitical private space. Without feminism, all the money and property she brought to a marriage would become her husband’s, she would be barred from many kinds of work after marriage, her husband could rape her legally, her children would stay with her husband after divorce, to mention only a few obvious issues.

If you know women who are so pitiably unaware of this, suggest they educate themselves.

I'm not sure you understand what feminism is missyamp.

Friend A does not sound like she has a husband earning an average salary, so not friend A’s concern.

Capitalism and inequality go hand in hand, as does the undervaluation of any work that women used to have to do for free. It also always will, because the work women used to do for free is essential work and thus invaluable, not of low value, but it has to be valued economically as low as possible (preferably provided for free) in order to make other work economically feasible.

As fewer people have children, or enough children to replace the current population, and more people live into old age with complex needs, or are kept alive for longer with complex needs, capitalism ceases to be able to be tapped into to sustain a society that cares about anyone else (or the environment), because too many people have needs which they can’t actually afford to pay for, but which it would be cruel not to provide them with and also, if not provided, would increase their chances of being lifelong economic burdens rather than temporary burdens. Also, a lot of inessential paid work is not really economically feasible, as many people cannot really afford to live on that, either, and that doesn’t help.

In the end, the highly capable, caring and genuinely valuable (even if economically seen as a drain) people, both men and women, who might be able to care for those unable to care for themselves will not be able to afford to even if they want to, because then they won’t be able to afford to live themselves. If it’s people who are not particularly caring or competent but couldn’t find better paid work, or worse, who are only doing it for the chance to be sadistic who end up caring for the vulnerable, then the whole of society ends up in a mess (not that we will ever be able to screen these people out altogether).

So, what to do?

I started my career doing the first sentence but admittedly don’t spend as much time in the classroom nowadays although I do have influence to drive change.

The problem with it is educating my own children at home..

(Mumsnet can often be like therapy!)

Because I think it's far more of a 'blessing' to be financially stable yourself.

Cooking nice meals and spending time with your kids is fun! Working 50 hours a week plus commute is well work. Friend B is right - they are in no way comparable

Yes If people didn't need money hardly anyone would work full time yes maybe a few In vocational jobs or prestige but no if you can afford not to you aren't going to work man or woman parent or not 🤣
so yes if my partner earned enough for me to stay home I bloody would end of story but I'd make sure I had my own financial security too but do I feel guilty for working not at all am I jealous of sahms no do I value them yes do I believe (one kids are in school) they have an easier life yes unappologetically! Would it be nice to do from scratch costumes and have time for myself he'll yes
do my kids miss out due to me working no they do not in fact I think I spend more quality time with them and they watch less tv etc than all my sahms kids do what suffers is my me time and yes we make compromises and have external support but sahms sometimes do too i know none at all who don't have kids in school full time and even make use of nursery and grandparents etc they aren't with their kids 24 hours a day at all either !

In the past, far fewer women than men went to university, or had access to good jobs. Therefore, in the past it was far more likely that SAH would default to the mother - she had fewer choices. It also explains why there was more likely to be a disparity in status and earning right from the get go. I remember even in the 1970s when I finished school, the secretary marrying the boss was still something you heard about; it often seemed to be the case that at the point of marriage, there was this disparity.

For quite a number of years now, girls have been out performing boys at every level of education. It's entirely normal (thank god) for women to aim for jobs of the same status as men. Should it really be a surprise that many women now don't wish to automatically default to staying at home or doing all the domestic load - they know they are just as capable and skilled in the workplace as their husbands. And vice versa - their husbands are just as capable in the home.

My husband earns enough for me to be a SAHM, especially considering how much nursery fees are going to be with 3 under 2. I will still work full time.

Like a pp said earlier, there's a difference between individual wealth and someone else's money. There's also the fact that I love my career and progressing in my career isn't possible unless you work full time because it is so fast moving.

This hyperbolic lecture is a common stereotype of feminists. However, it is important to recognize that not all women identify with the politicized feminist narrative.
The ops point isn't about any of the points listed in your post.
In reply to Southlondonmum22, the world is set up to control and distribute resources.
The subjectivity of fairness in political groups does not hold as much importance as economics. Extending parental leave or promoting equality in the workplace might clash with the ideals of some businesses. Similarly, in the family unit, people's choices are influenced by economic necessity. Not a subjective pursuit of happiness or an imaginary legacy.

True and as it should be. However women are allowed to chose and want to be at home or the default parent if they want to. Honestly if all the women on here with these fabulous, fulfilling careers are so happy with their choices why the nasty digs?