'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?

@SouthLondonMum22 imo there are elements of difficulty about any situation. Not many things are 100% wonderful or awful. And goodness knows, there's frequent posts on MN from SAHP saying how difficult it is and much harder than going to work!

For dh and me, part of our thinking about our work life balance was precisely because SAH / WOH both have elements of fulfilment and both have elements of pressure.

A debate is a debate sure, but there definitely comes a point where days' worth of professions about why people do their jobs - or not - start to sound a bit desperate. It's all just anecdotal and who are you actually trying to convince. Yourselves? Or this imaginary 'other side' that actually only exists in some people's heads.

There is no 'other side', just women living their lives in the way that makes most sense to them. This is true regardless of what type of work you do and why; when you choose to return to work (if ever) and how you manage your family. Nobody in real life carries in about 'other sides' and all this clap trap.

Depends on the level and type of job, and circumstances, but a lot of people do and put a brave face on it.

I'm not sure you can speak for 'a lot of people' here. Speak for yourself.

There are different levels of stress tolerance out there. We manage our household pretty well and I can't say we'd welcome less stress overall. Both DH love our jobs and the hustle that goes with them. We have a brilliant after school and the kids adore that. Our income means we have bandwidth to cut stress in other ways

Of course there are 'sides' in debates. That's usually how it works and you are also ignoring the fact that I brought up sides in response to someone complaining about digs aimed towards SAHM's whilst they conveniently ignored that digs happen on both sides.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. Simply having a discussion/debate with those who are interested in engaging. Debating doesn't mean you are insecure in your choice, though does it only apply to those who work or are the SAHM's debating insecure and desperate too?

Of course this topic is always animated because it’s so emotive. It’s about our children after all. We’re only human and our insecurities are often but not always behind our defensiveness. As working mums, this could be because we’re sick of men getting the promotion for smashing their project when we had to juggle our project with the Mother’s Mental Load, making a nutritious dinner, practising spellings, reading, children who apparently don’t sleep… Or maybe it’s because our particular work takes us away from our children and we’re actually a bit envious of mothers who never miss story time (guilty as charged). For sahms, maybe they are insecure about how precarious their set up is, or they have concerns about how easy it’ll be to get back to their career one day. Maybe a woman speaks from bitter experience.

Just a few examples and all hypothetical of course. I don’t need pointing out that these situations may not be the case. But I disagree that people should stop going on about this. It’s important.

Absolutely people should talk about it!

My mum's generation talked about it and how crazy it was that mothers usually couldn't return to work, no matter how well qualified and skilled they were because regulated childcare barely existed. This was also the era when women weren't even treated as independent beings but as an appendage of their husband: they weren't taxed as individuals and there were many other financial restrictions on women.

My generation were fortunate in having more rights but we were the ones flying the flag for paternity leave and better maternity legislation.

I want for my sons and daughter things to be even better: I want them, if they choose to have children, to do it in a society where it's not the default that mum stays home/ goes part time/ does more domestic work and that dad has to have the Big Job.

Progress is all about debate, exchange of ideas. The only reason people might want to shut this particular topic down is if they're comfortable with the fundamental inequalities that still exist.

It's important, but when people just want to defensively drone on about 'sides' it reduces any meaningful debate. It's very obvious that women take many roles in their lives - they may work all the hours in a day, 9-5, part-time, flexibly. They may be in and out if paid work for all kinds of reasons. They may not work for all kinds of reasons. They may change career path, or change husbands, become single, become ill - anything. So talking about 'sides', is totally missing the point. It's wholly unrealistic and it never goes anywhere.

Agree but I don't think you'll find any of the sensible posts talk about 'sides'. That's playground talk, as is the whole 'friend A friend B' nonsense.

Striving towards a more equitable society where people aren't defaulted into provider/carer on the basis of whether they've got a penis or not is absolutely valuable.

Except I'm not doing that at all. I'm not defensive for a start, I'm simply taking part in discussion/debate which usually involves some disagreement.

I'd argue that what you are doing reduces any meaningful debate because you are attempting to police how people respond and almost seem to want to shut down debate.

I brought up 'sides' in the context of a pp saying that only SAHM's have digs aimed at them and in the context of a debate, there's usually at least two 'sides'. Other pp has taken that and ran away with it for some reason.

It's not 'for some reason' 😆- these repetitive threads with the whole WOHM / SAHM are tedious because it's just defensive, anecdotal mud-slinging both ways. As I said, it goes nowhere and bears no relevance to actual reality. But some people love to engage in this to and fro ad infinitum - only they know why.

The A and B dichotomy was flawed from the start. I look like B but I can see the benefits of A in the Early Years which are so formative -though I also think nursery is important too. Best of both worlds would be MY ideal personally. This is why I roll my eyes when people complain about the cost of childcare and it’s aimed at nurseries rather than the government. Nursery staff should be paid more for doing such an important job. But that’s for another thread! Sorry to digress.

Yet here you are.

'Yet here you are'.

Yes. But feel free to carry on with the important debate - 'WOHMs dump their kids / 'SAHMs are brain dead ra ra ra ra.

To be fair, that's usually a minority on threads like this. It always happens but I don't think it's correct to reduce the discussion to that.

Plenty of comments have included intelligent discussion and debate without any personal insults.

It’s not mutually exclusive. You can depend on your partner whilst the kids are young but still have savings if s* hit the fan and also keep your skills so you could find work.
If someone prefers to look after their kids than going to work and prepared to make that sacrifice it doesn’t make prioritising working better.

If I wanted to look after my kids full time instead of working I’d do it in a heartbeat. The problem is too many women are trying to make SAHM feel bad for their choices.
I’m a full time working mum and can totally see the benefit in both lifestyles. The privilege comes from having choices which some people don’t and have to work regardless. Im sure that a lot of parents not just moms but dads too would quit work if they could maintain their levels of income.

@SouthLondonMum22 agree.

This is a public forum so unfortunately there'll always be a few crack pot or goady posts but that shouldn't detract from the hugely important issue of gender equalities of opportunity and the societal constructs which work against that.

Which is why I said it depends on the level and type of job.

Two people in finance who can afford FT nanny, cleaners, eating out, even a housekeeper, staff in other words to cover a SAHP’s tasks, are fine.

But the reality for many couples is that FT work involves covering domestic work in the evenings and the weekends.

And yet here you are, engaging in the to-and-fro. Irony.

I’m not actually in that situation, I’m just observing what I see around me and online.

If you wouldn’t “welcome” less stress there seem to be plenty of people who would.

Other than a tiny minority of independently wealthy people, no one really has the privilege of that choice. The choice to allow an adult to live without an income is a choice of the person financially supporting them. However much its couched in 'we' language, however much in times of cordiality its framed as a joint decision between equal partners, the wage earner really gets to decide as just as they give they may take away, as the fancy takes them.
The only way women would have a choice is through state funding to be a SAHP, which i inagine very few people would support.

Many working women do a chunk of SAHPing when the kids are small - I don’t recognise that as being limited to a “tiny minority” and certainly not “independently” wealthy.

It involves depending on someone else financially which naturally comes with risks. Even if it’s just whilst the kids are young, that’s why I wouldn’t consider it the ‘lucky’ option or a ‘blessing’.

@Mirabai stress comes in all sorts of forms. Being busy doesn't necessarily equate with stress. Of course, having too many demands on one's time can be a cause of stress, but so can lots of other things, such as feeling isolated or money worries