AIBU to think SAHMs are lazy?

[Fluffyscrubberdo]

As a stay at home mum how often do you get this judgement online vs real life?
It seems no one really says it in real life but there seems to be so much vitriol on here that there must be a fair amount of people who think it.
Has anyone made a rude comment to you in person?
Or are you a person who think sahm’s are lazy?

AIBU to think sometimes a sahm is in a family’s best interest?

This made me feel really sad. Being a SAHM was the norm less than a century ago when women's rights were negligible. Luckily we've moved towards equality and yet this is a prevailing view. What makes me even sadder is the often touted view on MN that SAHMs bring abandonment and ill treatment from DHs upon themselves by not returning to work and using child care. Looking after your own children is seen as contributing less than working to pay someone else to do it. Surely those are equal. Tax revenue is the sole reason the government are keen for all women to work. It was never a strategy aimed at the well being of women and children.

I think people should parent as they see fit but laziness is irrelevant. I work with children which is considered hard work but some might have considered my decision to be a FT SAHM for 18 months and then work very PT until she started school when I still worked PT as lazy. The work bit was definitely the lazier option in many ways, practically speaking.

There is some logic lacking here. Is cleaning someone else's house hard work when done professionally but deciding to clean your own lazy? Would I be less lazy if I worked extra hours to employ a cleaner? Surely this is a choice of how to spend my time and money and morally neutral, not an indication of how lazy I am.

Luckily I have no interest in whether anyone thinks I am lazy or whether I have parented correctly. I love both my job and being a SAHM. I still only work 60% now the youngest is 14 and I'm good with that.

Is it equally lazy to retire before statutory retirement age? I haven't heard that view often. It seems to be seen as an admirable goal. Is part time work considered inherently lazy? MN is full of men branded lazy fathers due to working 50 hours a week and never lifting a finger at home or caring for their children. It is a minefield, isn't it?

What is sad is when women are financially illiterate when they have children. Sometimes through ignorance and sometimes through deciding to focus on kids and not think about it. I think there needs to be better education regarding pensions and financially looking after yourself when you have kids.

And? If someone was rude enough to pass comment on my choices, I wouldnt think twice about passing comment on theirs. What makes one ok but not the other?

I think in an ideal world, young children benefit from having a parent at home with them. However, some parents don't want that for various reasons (us), some parents can't afford to lose an income and some parents think that children benefit from been in an environment with other children/structure etc.

All are valid choices/options. In the real world, I dont know anyone who cares what other families choose to do.

Agree. SAHMs are definitely not lazy and there are plenty of very logical reasons why women stop work at certain times in the child-rearing journey which I completely understand.

But betting yours and your children’s entire life security on someone else’s income and goodwill is like playing Russian Roulette.

I don't think SAMH are lazy. I know plenty people who work and are completely lazy. And on the days I have my kids (two under 5) are more tiring than when I'm at work!

There's always judgement on both sides. I've seen PLENTY of judgement levelled at working mums. How putting kids to nursery is akin to child abuse, how they will be "institutionalised" and what's the point having kids if you don't want to spend time with them etc etc. Criticisms that dad's never get etc.

I think what is best for each family is individual. Research and real life shows there is no different in outcomes for kids who have parents and work and who don't. The big factors are things like quality of care from their main caregivers, quality of attachment and feeling safe and secure and you don't need a parent their 24/7 for kids to feel this.

That said I don't know anyone that can afford to be a stay at home mum and I am glad I work and have that financial security for myself as you never know what's round the corner.

Do people say SAHMs are lazy? I'm not sure I've heard that frequently.

I have heard people raise concerns like perpetuating the patriarchy, being reliant on someone else financially, modelling behaviour - but this is more about the concept itself, not the personal attributes of the individual

I wasn't betting my whole existence on my husband for the last 14 years, I was betting on my children. I was giving them stability and raising them myself. My youngest will be starting reception in September and I'm going back to Uni to start a new career. Best of both. I know a handful of women who have successful careers after being SAHMs until their kids were in FT school. If you have the means, there is a choice. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

It's this kind of ignorance that fuels women making themselves powerless. Being a SAHM has never been the norm, throughout most societies and throughout history. Working-class women have generally always worked, upper-class women have not, but have equally never looked after their own children, and middle-class women being economically inactive really only started with the post-Industrial Revolution idea that a man kept his wife and daughters in domestic seclusion, away from the world of the shop/warehouse etc.

Did Jane Austen's mother work for a salary outside the home? No. Did she have a job? Absolutely -- while her husband was a clergyman and tutored and ran a small farm, she ran the domestic side of their small boarding school, kept a herd of dairy cows and poultry, taught and supervised their servants how to launder brew, bake, cook, preserve and store food, at a time with no refrigeration or labour-saving devices and when food needed to produced for twenty people three times a day. The household could not have functioned without her.

Was she a SAHM? No. All the Austen children, as was normal for their class and time, were sent off shortly after birth to be raised at a distance by a village family and only brought back home years later. The kids weren't part of the job.

Women mostly don't think SAHMs are lazy IMO. They are resentful because they have to work and balance everything and it is bloody hard and it is annoying to see someone who seems to have it easier. Who can AFFORD not to have to work.

Men who think SAHM are lazy are usually those who have no clue what it takes to keep a household running and manage a bunch of kids.

This is also why many people don't like those who fully WFH too IMO-- "why should I have to work and commute to an office when others just work on the sofa" etc.

Might not be totally reasonable to feel that way but it is human nature.

I think there are far worse traits than laziness for one thing.

I work but I’m on maternity leave with my second at the moment, I find looking after my kids all day much more tiring than my office job!

I don’t think it’s lazy. I think once all the kids are in school it’s a bad idea.

I think that because my mum was one. Dad left her 17 years after she stopped working and you can imagine how employable she was after that. She’d stopped working the year the internet was made public and had to get work again in the 2010s.

Why does it matter if someone thinks you're lazy? Presumably because you actually value yourself based on your effort and even when that effort is purely for your family's benefit, you need validation from outside your family.

I don't care what choices other people make. I made the right choice for my family and can say that for certainty now my children are adults.

A mother's place is in the wrong unfortunately. Whatever you do someone will judge you for it.

Just crack on with what suits your family.

My opinion is that young babies and toddlers need to be with their mother. I can understand this isn't always possible or even wanted by some though so I don't pass comment or judgement.

pretty sure the poster meant here that SAHMs are betting a significant portion of their long-term financial security on the continued success of their spouse's career and the expectation that financial support will continue.

When I was on the primary school run and at parent meet ups ten years ago it seemed to be the mums who worked full time who got all the judgement. The mums who didn't get judged/did the judging were married or partnered, worked part time term time only and volunteered for everything at the school! You do you...

You’re going to get so much vitriol on this post 😅

I don’t think STAHP are lazy no. But do I think it’s much easier than working a full time job and then doing all the things that STAHP would do during the day. Throw in the fact you don’t have to deal with any financial responsibilities of carrying a family and also working mum guilt and juggling the almost daily events at school yeah I think it’s a very charmed life.

I think we should take the word “lazy” out of our collective vocabulary especially when talking about women’s choices.

Who tf cares if it works for the woman and she/ her partner are financing it?

Bringing up children is an important job and often very hard (esp when kids are v young)

Yes a SAHM to older kids will get plenty of nice rest but that’s not something to condemn necessarily. Or she might study or do an interesting hobby and why shouldn’t she?

EDIT - I’ve always been a WOHM so not self interested here

You obviously never sat next to me at a dinner party. 😂They may not have a current career to talk about but unless they are a pretty dull person in general with no interests or intellectual curiosity, there is absolutely no reason they should have no 'identity' beyond being a SAHM and nothing to talk about apart from their children.

That's a bit like assuming a woman with a career will have absolutely nothing to talk about except her career. I'm sure for some women and plenty of men, that absolutely is the case, and they are just boring, one dimensional people. The same will be true of SAHMs. They perform the same day to day functions that most working mums have to pay someone else to do for them. That doesn't mean they are all one homogenous personality mass any more than all nurses or all teachers or all bankers are the same personality types. If you'd bother to ask the right questions when you meet SAHMs instead of making lazy assumptions, you'd know that.

And yes, they probably are more 'on top of school' than many working mums, but not always. That's just more of a personality thing and depends entirely how organised and motivated a person is.

But let's be honest, in an ideal world someone has to be 'on top of' school. If it's not you because your job doesn't allow you the bandwidth for it, then who is doing it for your children?

Same for SAHDs as long as everyone is genuinely in agreement with the situation (ie not men who refuse to work or do anything in the house and their partner doesn’t agree to that willingly)

I was a SAHM when my DC were little. No one ever called me lazy but I did get a reasonable amount of criticism.

Other women used to say “I couldn’t do it, I’d be so bored, I need the intellectual stimulation of work” Lovely.

Men used to criticise me for putting the financial burden all on my DH - as if he 1) hasnt made a joint decision for me to stay home and 2) didn’t benefit from only having to work.

Interestingly I got a lot of criticism (often from the same people!) went I went back to work, because I went back full time so you can’t win.

I do worry for friends who have been SAHM since their adult children were babies. They are financially vulnerable if their DH’s leave or become long term disabled/ill.

Who are you hanging around with?! I’ve worked all my life as have most of my friends but my sisters and some friends are SAHMs and the only thing me and my working friends feel is awe at best and the occasional jealousy at the worst at how they do it!

One of the mums from my school who lives on my road is a sahm and I often think she's lazy. Usually when I see her swanning around whilst I'm working from home. I know it's irrational and ultimately i think those bitter thoughts just come down to jealousy. Not at being a sahm as such, but at the idea of having what seems like so much free time.

as someone who grew up with both parents working and who is very close to both parents I disagree completely. Also , dads are just as well able to look after babies and toddlers .

People keep arguing that being a SAHM is the "norm" and it really isn't. My parents grew up in the 50s and 60s and their mums stayed at home but it wasn't like how we view a stay at home mum now. Kids were booted out to play as soon as they could walk so the mums could get on with the housework, which was a physical task in itself. They certainly weren't carting kids off to rhyme time at the library or doing nurturing educational activities at home.

And if we really want to get into the nitty gritty actually having one parent stay at home is so far removed as to how we traditionally parent children. Raising children from when we lived in tribes was seen as a group activity with children having multiple caregivers. Even in cultures that live like that today, child rearing is shared. I'm not stupid, I know putting a child to nursery is not the same as this, but also being a stay at home parents isn't "natural" or "normal" either.

It's fine if you want to make it your choice. But kids don't have better outcomes for having a stay at home parent. Kids can feel love, security and stability whether their mums work or stay at home.