'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?

'Risk' is obviously relative though. If you are couple who invest together, or have various income streams, joint investments, etc, this makes SAHP much more viable. For many people, SAHP is not a viable choice these days because families need two incomes to survive. But that's not to say there aren't many ways to mitigate against 'risk' if you are fortunate enough to have a choice and SAHP is something you feel happier doing overall.

I didn't say a tiny minority of women spend some time as a SAHP. I said that a tiny minority will be able to do so because its their choice. The choice belongs to the person agreeing to fund them to SAH.
People have talked about the 'main thing' being women having the right to choose. I'm saying that in the absence of state funding to SAH, only the independently wealthy really get that choice. The others are reliant on their partner choosing to allow it.

I don't think it's so much 'allow' it as 'prefer' it because in some circumstances, everyone benefits. It really is dependent on so many individual factors.

I am convinced that the OP is not real and is instead an allegory of the lamentable prevalence of women scorning one another for their choice of either staying at home to look after children or choosing to continue their career.
There is no friend A or friend B.

Of course but I’d say that those situations are exceptions. Generally, it means the SAHM is financially vulnerable.

The majority of time when there’s a thread about a woman trapped in a relationship she can’t afford to leave, she’s a SAHM.

The point is though that if they don’t prefer it then ultimately he will have the final say because he is the one providing the money.

It’s a power imbalance.

I can understand why you might think it would be a power imbalance and, in many cases it would be. In many other cases though, it really is not.

If you're with a man who thinks in terms of 'his money' or who believes in any type of separate finances or who doesn't see the benefits to his children of having their mum more available then obviously, don't be a SAHM.

I read @SouthLondonMum22's post more as a general point of the power imbalance between the sexes. There is a power imbalance in society which is reflected in many ways:

• men earning more than women

-women's careers being impacted more than men's if they have kids -women taking on more domestic/ caring/mental load by default -women having far less financial security in older age

Of course at a micro level there will be exceptions to the rule: the woman who out earns her husband. The dad who does the lion's share of nursery pick ups and domestic work. Etc.

But at a macro level it absolutely cannot be denied that there are inequalities which isn't good for anyone imo: not for women, mothers or the children we're raising to become the adults in a hopefully more enlightened society.

Exactly.

Well said.

Everything involves compromise though. If you SAH, you miss out on the benefits of working. The more you work, you miss out on time with children - this goes for men too. But people are all different and one persons' compromise is another persons ideal.

I don't think a society in which two parents both working and only spending evenings and weekends with their children is necessarily more 'enlightened.' It depends what people actually want, what makes them happier and what they value. For some, two parents working full time is a necessity. For some it's preferable. For some it's a less than ideal way to live. Again, it depends. One person's 'enlightened ideal' would be another person's nightmare.

@janetjupiter I don't think anyone has disagreed with that. There are upsides and downsides to every scenario and of course people are individuals with different views.

The point though it the inequalities at a structural level which impact on all of us. It's an inequality that mothers' careers, earnings and pensions are affected far more than fathers. It's a structural inequality that it's more socially 'unacceptable' for a father to go part time or jack his career in than for a mother.

That's the real debate here. And many of us strive for a society which works to overcome these inequalities

Yes of course. Personally, I'm all for equality of opportunity, but I am uncomfortable when people try to dictate equality of 'outcome' - ie. dictate how other couples in society should relate to each other or how they should organise themselves in their personal spheres. Some (many) couples will always prefer to have different focuses and different roles and this is absolutely fine. If people can't relate to that, it's their issue. They don't have to relate and they can live how they want.

If there were not a power imbalance between men and women, would power imbalances disappear? Would those being paid to help provide otherwise unmet care and domestic needs have more power than they currently do if both sexes did them equally, or would these services always attract low levels of pay and power? If the latter, are we happy that the quality of the care and domestic services offered would be adequate for all, or would there be insufficient numbers of people attracted to doing them, due to the abuse of power, low pay and low prestige they would be subject to if they actively chose to do them? Or would there be plenty of desperate people queueing up to do it, however badly, because any scrap is better than nothing?

Is domestic and caring work more appealing if done for your own loved ones, or if done for strangers? How do we guarantee the level of care we all want for those we love if we are not able to provide it ourselves and not able to pay much for others to provide it either?

That's it.

It all comes back to micro vs macro level. I don't care what people do at a micro level but I do care about the impact some of those choices have on all of us at a macro level which includes things such as the gender pay gap and the double standards we see when it comes to expectations of mothers and fathers as well as many other things that enable our unequal society.

If there were not a power imbalance between men and women, would power imbalances disappear?

This is like imagining what the oceans would be like if water wasn't wet.

Sorry to be facetious. But that power imbalance is the one constant that transcends culture, race, country, era. It was there in the stone ages and the bronze age and with the ancient Egyptians and in dynastic China and it's still here in the UK in 2023 and will remain so.

If you're with a man who thinks in terms of 'his money' or who believes in any type of separate finances or who doesn't see the benefits to his children of having their mum more available then obviously, don't be a SAHM.

Also remember that the man you divorce is not the same you married. So many men who made all the right noises and were happy for the woman to save nursery fees and facilitate his career will do a full 180 when they no longer want to be with that woman. Suddenly, when division of assets and support is concerned, the agreements and discussions never happened.

One person’s FT job can be wildly different to another person’s too which I think some who may have a great WFH policy might be a tad guilty of overlooking. Some can close their laptop and office (spare room) door at 5 and walk downstairs into their living room; others contractually finish at 5:30 but only leave the office, where they have to be five days a week, by 7 then jump on the Tube or train for their one hour commute. Not everyone can afford to pay for the childminder until this time, on top of the maximum time at nursery. Not everyone wants to. I certainly didn’t. Then it’s time for the hundreds of emails again and planning for tomorrow’s meetings after dinner and bedtime. I’m pretty disciplined with my time but I don’t know any colleagues with a similar job to me who only works 9-5:30 Monday to Friday. My husband doesn’t either.

What @G5000 says is absolutely true. But it's not just about marriages going bad. The happiest of marriages can be struck by serious illness, disability or death. Far more women than men are up shit creek in the event of their partner becoming ill or predeceasing them

You can't blame SAHMs for the gender pay gap though, any more than you can blame women in low paid jobs, or women who work part-time.

If we're talking on a macro level, I'd rather have a society where there is real choice for women. No they shouldn't feel pressured to SAH if they don't want to, but not should they be pressured to return to work before they're ready. If women want to SAH, this is perfectly valid IF they are financially protected, as many are. I don't even know why this needs justifying.

I don't think a society that equates 'equality' with men and women having to feel and act the same is wouid actually be equality at all. Women are different - we do carry children, we do feed them, we do have hormonal changes as a result, we are prone to PND and / or other physical issues that men are not. I'm in my early 50s, I've seen it all. Being a mum is hard work and let's not pretend otherwise. Babies are one thing - wait until their teens. Even menopause - this is only being recognised now. For too long this 'difference' was denied. And it has been to the detriment of women.

The fact that so many more women go part time is to blame too. Though I don't blame the individuals themselves, I blame society as a whole because of how sexist it is.

I want a society where there is a real choice for both parents and it isn't just women who are asked and expected to sacrifice their careers. I want society to expect fathers to step up and take some responsibility instead of thinking they are amazing just for 'helping'.

It was a rhetorical question 😏. Hence the rest of the post.

Would you also 'blame' the female nursery staff looking after our kids on MW for the gender pay gap (on a societal level). Should they all be aiming at banking? What is fair pay for them?

You are not a 'stay at home mum' if your kids are school age - you're a stay at home person (you're not 'mum-ing') There's absolutely nothing wrong with it and each person's needs and lifestyle choices are their own.

@janetjupiter no one has said women and men are exactly the same! But they aren't totally different species. Women are just as clever as men, have just as many skills which are valuable in the workplace. And men are just as capable at pretty much everything involved in caring for children and doing domestic work. The only think a dad can't do is feed breast milk directly from the breast, but that's not particularly relevant now as most women take long mat leave and children can drink from a sippy cup by the time mum goes back to work anyway. And lots of women continue extended bf long after being back at work too, myself included.

Yes, of course there are biological differences between men and women, no one is denying that, but those don't in themselves account for societal inequalities.

Dh and I have tried hard to raise our two ds and out dd to know that they don't have to conform to provider/ carer roles. I want my ds's to fully embrace nurturing qualities just as much as I want my dd to know she doesn't have to see her career as second to that of her partner. I don't want to live in a society that expects certain behaviours and traits simply because of sex. Men need to be allowed to fully develop the nurturing aspects of themselves just as much as women need to be allowed to shine in the workplace

No, because as I've already said I don't blame them on an individual level. Again, I blame society as a whole because of how sexist it is.

Caring roles such as nursery staff should be paid more
Society should also encourage more men into caring roles
Society should also encourage women into higher paying roles

This doesn't mean that women should never work in nurseries and men should never work in banking but there needs to be more balance because right now it is more difficult for a man to work in a nursery and it's more difficult for a woman to work in banking. There needs to be a balance.