SAHMS ON MN

[UBIA]

This is supposedly a site for mums - all types of mums.

On such a website, why is there so much hate and vitriol against mums who choose to SAH for a while?

The usual excuse for the storm of reactions is about financial vulnerability. Ok, I get that. But what if they're not financially vulnerable? How would you know? Bring a SAHM might have made you financially vulnerable - but you can't extrapolate that onto everyone else.

Why do people give anecdotes about some friend or their mother who was bored / insane / husband had an affair etc? Why? This is like saying "My friend had a job but she got depressed." So what? Also, if men are going to cheat, that's what they'll do anyway. Anyone can cheat in any type of marriage.

Why do people assume SAHMs are there for housework purposes? That depends on where / how they live and if they have cleaners, just like anyone else.

Why di people tell SAHMs their marriages are not 'equal?' Equality is about mutual respect. It has nothing to do with what job you do or money.

Frequently, people will say things like," Well, after my divorce the fact I was working meant I wasn't screwed." Ok, this is good obviously, but also, that's just you. How do you know the financial circumstances of anyone else - working or not? And why do you assume people haven't factored this sort of thing in?

Dime SAHMs will be screwed after divorce, sure. But others will not be. It depends on so many factors. Just like it does for anyone who works - it's all relative and completely circumstantial.

It is very odd that in a site for mums, the only mums that seem acceptable are the ones who don't SAH! MN is not like real life at all in this respect, it's very extreme (as I read it) because I don't know anyone in real life who makes assumptions about SAHMs or who would even care about this for 3 seconds. AIBU to think MN should be more open-minded and just live and let live without all the crazy assumptions.

Two. What’s not to understand? I remember being at home with a baby and a toddler all day every day and wanting to scream. I was touched out and exhausted, it felt never ending. Now they’re at school and I am back at work and I feel like it’s the perfect balance. I love spending time with them when we’re at home together much more because I’ve had a break and a chance to recharge. And yes, although I have a very busy and demanding job it’s absolutely nothing compared to how intense it was being a SAHM. That’s just my experience though.

Maybe I was doing SAHMing wrong then... I never felt it was that intense! For me, it was so much more laidback than living by the clock!

I didn't feel "recharged" by a day at work. I was exhausted going home to start it all over again. I have three.

I don’t think you were doing it wrong, my children were extremely clingy. Wouldn’t let anyone else look after them (not that anyone was offering to anyway!) or do anything for them. It was intense. Work is honestly like a holiday compared to that! But we’re all different and that’s why we shouldn’t make sweeping generalisations that one mother’s experience is easier than another just based on whether she goes out to work or stays at home.

Maybe that's where the difference lies - mine were always fairly outgoing and not that clingy. They were in nursery from 5, 7 and 10 months respectively and they were perfectly happy for others to mind them.

But hey, motherhood is a 'life sentence' (in a good way I suppose!) I've been blindsided by the amount of support they still need well into their 20s!

I wouldn't actually be offended at all if someone really loved being a SAHM and hoped that her dd might one day be able to enjoy a similar set-up. My career has been immensely rewarding and fulfilling for me, and I've enjoyed the financial freedom that it has given me - I would love for dd to have a similarly fulfilling career that gives her the freedom to do whatever she wants to do. I don't think it's particularly unusual to hope that our dc will be able to enjoy similar positive experiences to the ones that we have valued for ourselves. In the same way, I've loved being a mum and it has brought great joy into my life, so I hope that dd might one day experience that too. And lots of other things that have been Important to me such as a happy marriage, close female friendships, opportunities to travel etc. Of course, DD will ultimately make her own choices about the life that she wants to lead, and I will absolutely respect those choices.

My hopes for my daughter aren't intended as a criticism of other people's lifestyle choices. As I said, I honestly couldn't care less what other people do if it works for them and their families.

@Lelophants

But you still had to add the bit on at the end where you would never aspire to it for your daughter. Why? Imagine if someone said that about a working mother. Yeah you’d be offended

This wasn’t addressed to me but I will explain how I feel: I don’t look down on SAHMs by any stretch but I wouldn’t want it for my daughter. In fact I am always going on at her to avoid it if she possibly can. Because I think it’s very dangerous as a woman not to be able to support yourself.

I’m sorry if this offends people but it is the case that if you can’t/don’t work you are vulnerable to abuse or exploitation and just not being in control of your life.

Being a SAHM can no doubt be wonderful. And marriage does give you some protection.

But it would be very foolish, as a mother, to actively steer your daughter into a lifetime of dependency on another person. I don’t see why that’s controversial or offensive? It’s just common sense.

Yes a very different set up and if I may say, yours were all at nursery so young you were never a stay at home mum so to comment that it’s much easier than being a working mum isn’t really fair. I’m sorry you found being a working mum so challenging but I hope that on balance you are glad with the decision you made, as that’s how I feel about my time as a SAHM.

I think there is definitely the attitude that if you don’t work you aren’t contributing to society and that seems to apply to everyone with several under 5’s as much as to someone without responsibility.

I think there should still be a choice. Parents who want to stay home with children should be given the same financial support as those who want to put a baby in nursery. The early years are important and parents should be able to choose what fits their family best - whether that’s working to preserve the family earning potential or someone being at home.

The thing that strikes me most is how many mums are turning up at 7am to drop their baby off at nursery sleep deprived and nearly in tears with exhaustion from trying to do it all. We need to make choices and balance easier without such financial pressure. Then there are those like me who are trying to raise children alone as single income households doing it all in a cost of living upswing. There is no help to stay home with children as UC doesn’t cover cost of living.

Parents who want to stay home with children are given the same financial support as those who want to put a baby in nursery - none!

If families want to have a SAHP, that’s their decision and should receive no taxpayers financial support to do so. Dependant upon age a funded nursery place is available.

I agree.

Hi just saw this is still going.

I totally understand why people wouldn't actively encourage daughters to be SAHMs either. I'm very active in my daughter's education and the sky is the limit for them, as far as we're concerned.

However - at the same time, I would hate for them to feel as if they have to put their babies into childcare if this makes them unhappy. I would hate for them to feel compelled into that type of family lifestyle because it's a different type of restriction and emotional stress. I hope they can find their own balance and a husband who supports them so there can be choice for all, rather than being pushed into relying on childcare as the default option (because I don't think it should be default).

How can you not understand? Maybe you had super easy kids. Being on childcare 24/7 with no breaks and still expected to clean the house isn’t easy.

I completely agree. Feminists worked hard to give us a choice. Work isn’t everything, especially for everyone. Kind of depressing to think some people still view it this way and for women to be happy and worthy.

So only the rich and fairly well off can get the choice of being a SAHM? Personally I don't see an issue if on UC you can stay at home until they start school to be with them (rather than job search at three). Obviously have a child limit cap so at some point you have to go back to work after a certain number of children.

Obviously this is another debate altogether!

If you don’t want to work, you fund that lifestyle and not taxpayers. You save up pre babies or live off one salary.

@Lelophants

I completely agree. Feminists worked hard to give us a choice. Work isn’t everything, especially for everyone. Kind of depressing to think some people still view it this way and for women to be happy and worthy.

Choice is a part of feminism but people often position this as being its sole outcome. It’s not. Feminism is primarily about empowering women and in above all protecting them from exploitation by men. I feel it’s slightly misleading to position feminism as being a green light for women to do whatever they feel like because “choice”.

Being a SAHM is a perfectly fine choice to make if you can afford it and want to do it and there are upsides but it comes with significant financial risk (and social risk). Why would you encourage your daughter to do something when it’s likely to financially detrimental to her?

I think supporting it as part of a suite of options with the right caveats and protections is fine. Setting it up as the ideal and encouraging it seems irresponsible to me.

@IVFmumoftwo

So only the rich and fairly well off can get the choice of being a SAHM

People shouldn’t expect public money to not work just because they want to stay with their children.

Many of us want to do this.

Benefits are there to support people who can’t work, not to uphold an outdated ideal of how a family should be run.

Except for the husband who might not want the pressure of being solely financially responsible for a whole family?

It shouldn’t be a choice aimed only at women. Men are parents too.

Women aren’t entitled to stay at home just because they are mothers. I do believe that the default option should be both parents working, ideally flexibly so both can be responsible for financially providing and some childcare.

I think the benefits system exists as a safety net for those who really need it - it isn't there to fund other people's lifestyle choices.

There are lots of things that richer people can afford that are sadly out of reach for those on lower incomes. That's just a fact of life.

I would gladly pay more tax to provide a better standard of living for those who really need the support, e.g. those who are unable to work due to sickness or disability, caring for disabled relatives, unexpected changes of circumstance etc. However, I don't think taxpayer money should be used to fund people's personal choices - those are for individuals to fund for themselves.

I had the older ones at home with me during the 11 months I was on maternity leave with my youngest so fair to say I think that counts?!

It was certainly challenging as there was always somewhere you had to be, and there were times I had 2 children in different evening activities at the same time!! There was having to remember the night before what needed to be brought the next day, not just school uniform, but uniforms for ballet, Guides etc.

I'm more than glad with the decision I made, I'm delighted Absolutely zero regrets! Now that pension is looming I can see what a precarious position I would have been in had I not continued working full-time! I would never have been prepared to rely on any man. I like my independence too much.

I don't understand because it doesn't make any sense to me! And no, I didn't have "super easy kids" by any means! Quite the opposite, especially the youngest and I was 40 when they were born into the bargain! That child never bloody slept day or night! If you got them down during the day, you could guarantee they would be up again in half an hour!

I was in work or 24/7 childcare so I can't see how that makes me any different to a SAHM. Just a mum with a whole other set of pressures in work, and commuting. If you're at home all day surely it's a much more leisurely affair? You wouldn't have to plan everything out the night before for instance. You can plan your own day - if you don't feel like mopping the kitchen floor today you can do it tomorrow. You are your own boss and you organise your days without a manager expecting anything from you. Your kids can do their activities straight from school in many cases, leaving your evenings free.

I'd say I had to relax my standards of cleaning. The house was usually a tip full of toys. You can't do everything. And if you think being a SAHM is so much harder, why don't you just go back to work?

@SouthLondonMum22 - Yes but my point was, I hope my daughters find someone on the same page as them, whatever that page is.

For me, there are things in life I am prepared to compromise on, but my babies in childcare was not one of them. I'm not doing it. I know myself and I know I couldn't live like that, end of. They went a few mornings a week when they were about 2.8 / 3 years, but it was very casual and if they didn't want to go, I didn't force it. They all started reception fine and never looked back. None were ever clingy. All very independent kids.

Given the way I am, probably it was no surprise that I ended up with a man who was fine with that - who understood and was on the same page. It never occurred to us to do things differently. People gravitate towards partners in life who complement them. There are billions of men in the world. If you want a SAHD, they're out there. If you want a man who expects you to work and have your own bank account and take minimum time off with kids - plenty of them out there too these days. If you want a man who is very career-focused himself but understands that his wife has a different outlook - these men are obviously out there too. Opposites can attract and work well as an equal partnership, freeing each other to live the lives they prefer. '50/50' in all tasks could be really suffocating, stressful and humdrum for some people. In our marriage, we are equals and we work together, regardless of who earns what and this kind of thing. That's isn't something we even think about - not ever - and we've been together 30 years. Total non-issue. Everything is shared and for the family. Never used childcare. Never argued about money. Everything always shared and equal say in finances. He spends time with the kids in his way - he always took them out 'doing stuff' at weekends etc. I was more the day-to -day detail. It worked. 3 kids through independent schools. One at Oxford now, one going to LSE and one starting Year 12. Life changes , now we have more time for each other as he's semi-retired and works from home mostly anyway. We are financially better off too for me being a SAHM. This is just us. But I do know, now aged 50, that life takes many turns. It's not prescriptive and nobody can tell women what they should want. I would hate for my daughters to be going into a world where they feel scorned for wanting to be with the children they birthed, day to day. What kind of society would that be? Women have had centuries of being told what to do, thanks. Ultimately, you just have to be true to yourself, whatever that looks like. Nothing in life is going to be perfect. But you do the best you can.

Sorry I think that was a bit of a mojito-induced rant!

I agree that finding someone on the same page as you is very important. My DH would never agree for me to be a SAHM but then I’d also never agree for him to be a SAHD, it wouldn’t feel equal to us and would cause issues but of course, it can clearly work for others.

As long as it isn’t funded by the government, it’s absolutely fine.