Page 32 | To ask if you work or are a SAHP..

DontBeTight · 2024-01-26T15:58:34+00:00

Just that really, those of you who have children under school age. Do you work, or do you stay at home? Or work part time? My youngest won't start school until 2026 so I'm considering giving up work and having the rest of the time full time at home with her as my income makes very little difference to the household. Those who stay at home, do you enjoy it?

SouthLondonMum22 · 03/02/2024 16:23

indigoskies · 03/02/2024 16:12

@SouthLondonMum22 - that probably explains why you can't understand families with a SAHP. SAHP families have a totally different mentality and you're just not thinking as separate financial entities, regardless of who earns what.

Probably. It's also a big reason why I'd never be a SAHP myself or agree for DH to be one if he wanted to even though he's the lower earner.

Thepeopleversuswork · 03/02/2024 16:27

indigoskies · 03/02/2024 15:15

I was joking @Thepeopleversuswork (well, mostly 😉). That stereotype is as daft as saying all SAHMs have to talk about is PlayDoh.

Both of the stereotypes are patronising and grossly misleading.

I have skin in the game as a working mum I guess but it does irritate me when work is presented as a kind of indulgence or a bit of “play acting” which women do though.

You get loads of comments about people “leaving their kids to climb the corporate ladder” as if we just dump our kids in childcare because we want to play at wearing shoulderpads or some such bollocks. When the majority of us do it to pay the bills.

Yeah it’s a sore point. But I find it insulting.

Whatdoy · 03/02/2024 16:28

5128gap · 03/02/2024 16:10

Genuinely...how? When I SAH I had less autonomy than at any point in my life. The 'work' was easy in that it didn't tax me mentally (which caused me to be very bored) but hard in that all my time was at the mercy of my DC demands. I have never been unfortunate enough to have a paid role where I didn't have at least some choice in what I did and when, to take breaks, to be on my own, or not, as I chose. How can anyone do whatever they want all the time while caring for children?

Show quote history

I can choose to go out or not, choose what time to get dressed or shower, when to eat, where to eat (I can go to the pub if I want or a nice cafe or whatever I fancy), I can meet up with friends wherever it suits me, go shopping or something. Go off on holiday tomorrow if I fancy it. I don’t have to live to anyone else’s timetable.

Obviously with kids they need to be fed and nap and bathed etc, but I always found that mine was pretty flexible with that stuff.

My job was one where you run your own diary, work flexi time, get toil, work from home or office etc so not a 9-5 at this desk situation, but there are statutory deadlines for things, millions of other professionals availability to work round, service user needs and availability etc, so there are constraints.

indigoskies · 03/02/2024 16:29

I would never entertain a relationship with children and separate finances. To me, it's a contradiction in terms. It's also very limiting, possibly abusive, for women with children, in my view, even if they are the higher earner.

0rangeCrush · 03/02/2024 16:30

indigoskies · 03/02/2024 16:29

I would never entertain a relationship with children and separate finances. To me, it's a contradiction in terms. It's also very limiting, possibly abusive, for women with children, in my view, even if they are the higher earner.

How would it be abusive to the woman if she was the higher earner?
If anything; there is potential to abuse of the lower earner; regardless of their gender.

Thepeopleversuswork · 03/02/2024 16:35

indigoskies · 03/02/2024 16:29

I would never entertain a relationship with children and separate finances. To me, it's a contradiction in terms. It's also very limiting, possibly abusive, for women with children, in my view, even if they are the higher earner.

Why is it limiting and potentially abusive to have separate finances if the woman is the higher earner? Surely for the higher earner, regardless of sex, combining finances is always risky?

I mean there are plenty of sound and noble reasons to do it but the person with more assets and money always has the most to lose surely?

The rationale for combining finances makes sense if one partner isn’t working but if both are generating income and there’s no wild disparity I can’t see the upside.

I would never combine finances.

SouthLondonMum22 · 03/02/2024 16:40

indigoskies · 03/02/2024 16:29

I would never entertain a relationship with children and separate finances. To me, it's a contradiction in terms. It's also very limiting, possibly abusive, for women with children, in my view, even if they are the higher earner.

I would never entertain a relationship, with or without children if finances were expected to be combined.

I don't understand how it is limiting and potentially abusive when the woman is the higher earner?

indigoskies · 03/02/2024 16:46

It's abusive, in my view, because how dare any man expect a woman to carry and give birth to a child if he's not even prepared to share finances with her?

Women bear the risk and the brunt of having children, physically and emotionally. You never know what can happen - I know women who had gestational diabetics, PND and worse than this. If you are sharing you DNA with someone, but not your bank accounts - what's that about? I would not compromise on that, ever, and I wouldn't entertain a man who wanted separate money. I could not respect that and I wouldn't trust him.

0rangeCrush · 03/02/2024 16:50

indigoskies · 03/02/2024 16:46

It's abusive, in my view, because how dare any man expect a woman to carry and give birth to a child if he's not even prepared to share finances with her?

Women bear the risk and the brunt of having children, physically and emotionally. You never know what can happen - I know women who had gestational diabetics, PND and worse than this. If you are sharing you DNA with someone, but not your bank accounts - what's that about? I would not compromise on that, ever, and I wouldn't entertain a man who wanted separate money. I could not respect that and I wouldn't trust him.

Right; but what if the woman is the one putting £3.5k per month (or more) into the account, whilst the man contributes nothing? How is the woman being abused? She’s free to spend whatever she likes, and can give the man whatever “pocket money” she feels like providing him with.

0rangeCrush · 03/02/2024 16:51

indigoskies · 03/02/2024 16:46

It's abusive, in my view, because how dare any man expect a woman to carry and give birth to a child if he's not even prepared to share finances with her?

Women bear the risk and the brunt of having children, physically and emotionally. You never know what can happen - I know women who had gestational diabetics, PND and worse than this. If you are sharing you DNA with someone, but not your bank accounts - what's that about? I would not compromise on that, ever, and I wouldn't entertain a man who wanted separate money. I could not respect that and I wouldn't trust him.

Also, I don’t share any DNA with my partner. That’s just … odd.

SouthLondonMum22 · 03/02/2024 16:54

indigoskies · 03/02/2024 16:46

It's abusive, in my view, because how dare any man expect a woman to carry and give birth to a child if he's not even prepared to share finances with her?

Women bear the risk and the brunt of having children, physically and emotionally. You never know what can happen - I know women who had gestational diabetics, PND and worse than this. If you are sharing you DNA with someone, but not your bank accounts - what's that about? I would not compromise on that, ever, and I wouldn't entertain a man who wanted separate money. I could not respect that and I wouldn't trust him.

Why are you acting like it is the mans choice and the woman is just going along with it? My husband could be as prepared to share finances with me as he likes but it wouldn't be happening because I'd never agree to it.

indigoskies · 03/02/2024 16:58

If I was a higher earner, I wouldn't be giving him 'pocket money' no, because that is disrespectful and demeaning. If you have a child, to me, that's is the priority for both of you. Obey dnd above d trying else. It's doesn't matter who earns what and who works more or less or who is a SAHP. You are a unit, an equal partnership, and both focused on the child's best interests. You decide what's best for them and organise according to that.

SouthLondonMum22 · 03/02/2024 17:06

indigoskies · 03/02/2024 16:58

If I was a higher earner, I wouldn't be giving him 'pocket money' no, because that is disrespectful and demeaning. If you have a child, to me, that's is the priority for both of you. Obey dnd above d trying else. It's doesn't matter who earns what and who works more or less or who is a SAHP. You are a unit, an equal partnership, and both focused on the child's best interests. You decide what's best for them and organise according to that.

All of that is possible with separate finances.

0rangeCrush · 03/02/2024 17:10

indigoskies · 03/02/2024 16:58

If I was a higher earner, I wouldn't be giving him 'pocket money' no, because that is disrespectful and demeaning. If you have a child, to me, that's is the priority for both of you. Obey dnd above d trying else. It's doesn't matter who earns what and who works more or less or who is a SAHP. You are a unit, an equal partnership, and both focused on the child's best interests. You decide what's best for them and organise according to that.

But how is the woman prone to being abused? The lower earner is always the partner more susceptible to financial abuse in relationships where the money isn’t pooled. That is usually the female; but not exclusively.

And let’s not pretend that the majority of parents who are trapped with a partner they no longer want to be with are the SAH parent or the lower earner. Usually the female; but only because of gender pay disparity and sexist attitudes where SAHD’s are viewed as “feminine” or “wimpy” (thus making it harder for them to seek help against abuse than for women to seek help)

0rangeCrush · 03/02/2024 17:14

And for the record we have completely pooled resources despite me being the higher earner. I’d be far better off financially if we didn’t pool our resources, so this isn’t a personal thing to me. I just don’t see how the main earner can ever really be vulnerable to financial abuse; and IMO the best way a high earner can protect themselves from abuse is by not pooling finances.

If my relationship began to deteriorate the first thing I’d do was uncouple our finances, which would impact my financial position positively and his negatively.

Winnipeggy · 03/02/2024 17:19

I'm a SAHM and love it, don't get me wrong it can be hard and exhausting but I love spending this time with her and I have good support which I think is vital. If I was on my own with no extended family it would be extremely difficult. But my DD is 2 and I can't believe I only have 2 more years with her before she starts school. It really does feel like a magical time right now and if I was working it would literally make no difference to our income with nursery fees so entirely pointless.

SouthLondonMum22 · 03/02/2024 17:21

0rangeCrush · 03/02/2024 17:10

But how is the woman prone to being abused? The lower earner is always the partner more susceptible to financial abuse in relationships where the money isn’t pooled. That is usually the female; but not exclusively.

And let’s not pretend that the majority of parents who are trapped with a partner they no longer want to be with are the SAH parent or the lower earner. Usually the female; but only because of gender pay disparity and sexist attitudes where SAHD’s are viewed as “feminine” or “wimpy” (thus making it harder for them to seek help against abuse than for women to seek help)

Show quote history

pp seems to be assuming that it's always the man who doesn't want to pool finances and it is the least he can do because it is the woman who gets pregnant and gives birth. Apparently not doing so is abusive in her opinion.

Which makes no sense if the woman doesn't want to pool finances anyway and it's a mutual decision.

0rangeCrush · 03/02/2024 17:23

SouthLondonMum22 · 03/02/2024 17:21

pp seems to be assuming that it's always the man who doesn't want to pool finances and it is the least he can do because it is the woman who gets pregnant and gives birth. Apparently not doing so is abusive in her opinion.

Which makes no sense if the woman doesn't want to pool finances anyway and it's a mutual decision.

Show quote history

Ah yes, big powerful men and little weak ladies.

LorlieS · 03/02/2024 17:25

@BreeBacon The big difference is I still work and could always push up my hours if the shit hit the fan.
Which is exactly what I did when I left my first husband.
That's not the same for ft SAHMs.

indigoskies · 03/02/2024 17:29

"All of that is possible with separate finances."

A man who wants separate finances is far less likely to support his wife if she wants or needs to be with her baby for any period beyond the minimum. He would expect her to fund herself and feel no responsibility. This kind of man is not interested in 'equality' or feminism, he's a misogynist b***rd.

0rangeCrush · 03/02/2024 17:34

indigoskies · 03/02/2024 17:29

"All of that is possible with separate finances."

A man who wants separate finances is far less likely to support his wife if she wants or needs to be with her baby for any period beyond the minimum. He would expect her to fund herself and feel no responsibility. This kind of man is not interested in 'equality' or feminism, he's a misogynist b***rd.

We are talking about men who are low earners here, not men who are high earners. It’s obviously unrealistic that the woman takes extended time off if she is the higher earner. I took 8 months off and then transferred my leave to my partner. In these instances; the man would be the one to cut his hours or take time off with the baby/child. Common sense.

0rangeCrush · 03/02/2024 17:36

Ah, shared paternal leave and men going part time/becoming SAHD’s and allowing their partners to continue their careers rather than throwing it all away. Such misogynistic bastards.

SouthLondonMum22 · 03/02/2024 17:36

indigoskies · 03/02/2024 17:29

"All of that is possible with separate finances."

A man who wants separate finances is far less likely to support his wife if she wants or needs to be with her baby for any period beyond the minimum. He would expect her to fund herself and feel no responsibility. This kind of man is not interested in 'equality' or feminism, he's a misogynist b***rd.

But as you said before, it's simply a different mentality. My husband wouldn't have married me if I wanted to be a SAHM, just as I wouldn't have married him if he wanted to be a SAHP.

We both expect each other to contribute financially if we are able to. Obviously illness, disability etc would be different.

indigoskies · 03/02/2024 17:44

I wouldn't have married a man who expected me to put my kids with a nanny. Because that is not what I ever envisaged or wanted.

0rangeCrush · 03/02/2024 17:46

indigoskies · 03/02/2024 17:44

I wouldn't have married a man who expected me to put my kids with a nanny. Because that is not what I ever envisaged or wanted.

Who said the kids go to a nanny? You are just making stuff up now.