Professional couple, now SAHM - does it change your relationship?

[mrschop]

I know having kids results in a big shift, anyway. But I had a good career - same field as DH - which I've given up (at least temporarily) to stay at home with the children and support DH. He's just had a big promotion at work, is under lots of pressure so I'm at home alone a lot. So our day to day lives, which had previously been very similar, are now quite different. I'm 18 months in to my SAHM role, and am quite happy, but I do wonder how things will be in 5, 10 years time: I always assumed we'd be 'equivalent' (socially/professionally) throughout our life, and now his career is motoring off while mine recedes in to the past. Although I don't like to define myself purely in work terms, I do think the woman I am now is quite different to the woman he married! I know others must have gone through this, I just wonder how you get used to your expectations as to how your life together will be being completely turned on their head?

Also I have no experience of it despite being in year 23 as a mother because I never was home like that.I was just putting the othe rpoint of view.

I suppose downsides are those sexist men who see the weekend as their time off so the woman works 7 days a week on childcare and husband 5 dyas. Or husband who doesn't help in the evenings so mother is working say 16 hours a day at husband less. Or husband who sees most of it as his money and doles out little bits so there is always argument over that or doesn't help top up her pension or let her have even some savings in her name from his earnings so she feels she has some measure of financial independence. Or who at heart doesn't really appreciate the mothering bit and sees the wife as having an easy life. Not all men are like that but a lot you hear about on mumsnet are (see many other threads).

Also sometimes the women become fat and dull and only interested in domestic things. The husband no longer has the woman he married and he goes off with someone younger. On the otehr hand can work the other way - woman at home, neglected by husband who works all the time and himself is fat and unattractive and she is home and fit and plays around with someone who at least is prepared to give her some attention. those differences can arise from the disparity in lives too engendered by being a housewife.

Xenia you have completely ignored what mrschop said!!

Not all women who choose to stay at home (and I use the word 'stay' reservedly because in many cases including my own it is untenable for both parents to stay at home) become overweight morons Xenia. I accept that some women allow their standards to slide both physically and mentally but if you approach things with the right attitude, continue to stretch yourself (this can be done - even with a small child to look after) and don't allow others to dent your self-esteem you can remain the person you once were. Woe betide anybody who tries to lable me a slobby simpleton simply because I don't sit in an office during the hours of daylight.

Xenia

'Won't be happy in the longterm' - being at home wiht children when they are little isn't longterm... its a few years. I don't want to go back to my career as was but I can then do something else.

'staying at home 24/7' - I don't !! I am never in. I am fortunate to have a cleaner (as DH is physically not home to help out domestically) so don't clean. Yes its sometimes dull but I'm yet to meet anyone whose job/role is 100% rewarding.

I appreciate you say, not all men are like this but

'sexist men who see the weekend as their time off so the woman works 7 days a week on childcare and husband 5 dyas. Or husband who doesn't help in the evenings so mother is working say 16 hours a day at husband less.'

DH can't physically help during the week as he leaves 7ish and gets home 9-10ish on a good day. At weekends he is very hands on - I ensure he gets no let up !

'Or husband who sees most of it as his money and doles out little bits so there is always argument over that or doesn't help top up her pension or let her have even some savings in her name from his earnings so she feels she has some measure of financial independence.'

No probs here - whats his is mine and whats mine is mine (the little I have earned in various ways I keep) but 'DH's' money is outs and we both have equal status in regards to the money.

I DO understand where you are coming from Xenia in a way but I think you DO stereotype and have a very black and white view on the matter. It can (and does) work for people happily !

and on the subject of being fat - I am using my time at home to get fit - something I wouldn't have time for if I worked ! DH couldn't be fat if he tried but I'll hold judgement on playing around with someone else because DH works too long hours .

I'm reasonably happy long-termish after being at home for the last 15+years.

This is a good question. I'd like to understand the answer to it:

"Why should it always be women that sacrifice everything and why do they let it happen to them time after time?"

Reading (briefly, because I really couldn't stand to read too much) about the horror story in Austria in today's ST, there's an interesting angle on how living in a patriarchal society enabled this to happen. We've all probably read the "minding one's own business" take on the situation and this seemed an interesting point. The whole thing about obedience, not questioning the husband's absolute rights etc was frightening.

On MN I read lots of guff stuff about it being empowering and all to stay at home and maybe that's true and maybe it's not. But time after time (on MN at least) it's the women who are well educated and well trained who give up their jobs while the men carry on with their careers. It makes me think that we live in a less liberal and more patriarchal society than I thought from my own cosy bubble. What price equality when financial independence is the province only of men?

Your image of men is so stereotypical Xenia that I can't help wondering whether despite your posh expensive education, you made the mistake of marrying a man who conformed to the type! At any rate, we know from other threads that you suffered a serious financial blow when you and your ex split up, so a serious error of judgement in my book! Perhaps you need to spend a little less time worrying about the rest of us being downtrodden and exploited! I'm very glad I married someone who has equal earning power and parenting skills to me - I'd certainly feel I'd messed up if I had to give my partner a huge pay-off!!

I gave up my career because that's what I preferred to do. Given the choice (and it was a true choice) between carrying on with my career or taking full-time care of my children and bringing them up myself rather than delegating that to outside childcare, I chose the latter. I've been happy with that choice so far.

I became a stay at home mum about 4 years ago now and although yes some things have changed, I don't feel my DH treats me differently or views me with less respect or as a less intelligent woman (I unfortunately cannot always say that about others once they learn I am a SAHM). I am lucky in the respect that my DH has not got any hang ups about money, what he earns he considers to be ours and never questions my purchases or makes me feel guilty about wanting to see my own friends. I have my own savings and pension. I do not feel a 'kept' woman in any way as I know I work hard too and yes things like play dates are more fun then work! He still has to do his fair share with the children at the weekend and in the evenings and as a result he has a very good relationship with the kids and me!!! I think if both sides go into this situation with open eyes and minds then the relationship need not slide. Of course there are days when I have to take the strain if he has had an awful day at work but wouldn't this be the case whether I was working or not?

Staying at home doesn't always mean acquiescing to your partner. It absolutely doesn't! As for financial matters, despite taking some time out to care for my children, financially I am on a total par with my partner. We have joint accounts and our pension payments are the same. I don't see what the problem is with taking a few years out. I worked for ten years, and if I go back to work in the next couple of years I've still got a good thirty year career ahead of me.

Quattro, I think that drawing some kind of parallels between the Austrian cellar case and SAHMs is bizarre. I'm sure that there are many complex reasons why Herr Fritzl did what he did, including the fact that he had total dominance over his complying wife, but to bring this up in order to critisise the relationship SAHM have with their partners is off the mark and offensive.

As a final point, I know many women who go to work whose husbands still have complete control over their finances. A close friend of mine has to run every financial decision past her husband. As with most things much depends upon the particular relationship you have with your partner.

Cissy, to be fair, I think Quattro was discussing one angle on the whole bizarre Austrian case, and it seemed clear that this was gleaned from what she had read on the case rather than necessarily being her viewpoint.
Of course the Austrian case is an extreme example. The vast majority of men, even where they are the sole breadwinner and have a very traditional approach to family, are not going to lock up their daughter in a cellar for 25 years!!
The point being made (and I guess Quattro will correct me if I'm wrong) is that even in the 21st century, society is maybe more patriarchal than we are led to believe. The fact is, it is women who are more likely to give up well paid, high status careers than men. And that's a point which deserves intelligent debate. A generation or two ago, it was easier to see why this happened. My mother was not expected to go to University, she left school at 17 and was basically a SAHM apart from part time low status work when we kids were at school. I'm not saying this was right - my mother was equally intelligent and capable as my father, and I detected resentment as the years went by that she had no outlet for this. But at the same time, the expectation had never been there that things would be any different. She had no professional training, and less earning power than my father.
These days things are so different. My dh and I both went to university, we both trained as professionals - in short, we are both equally capable of earning a living AND doing the parenting. And I'm sure it's exactly the same for many many others. People tend to be attracted to those of similar social and educational standing. Men who have been to university and are in interesting careers often pair up with similar women. Therefore it is absolutely natural that there is honest and open discussion about how society can enable both men and women to achieve their potential.

I don't think working "liberates" or "empowers" women in their couple relationships.

If a woman is in a subordinate role in her couple relationship and chooses to work to "protect" herself (financially) that is surely an admission of male dominance in her relationship?

Negotiating an equitable division of labour and freedom within a couple - such that both individuals are happy with their lot - has absolutely nothing to do with work and everything to do with self-esteem.

I don't think it's about 'empowering' a woman within her relationship. My professional role empowers me as an individual. I suppose you could also say that within the context of my relationship, and within the context of wider society, my professional role empowers me, but it's first and foremost about me as an individual. The idea of one partner working to 'protect' themself is one i don't understand. Why should this apply to the woman any more than the man?
Of course the best partnerships are where there is an equitable division of labour, though I disagree that this has 'absolutely nothing ' to do with work. Paid employment is one factor among others. Where you have couple who both have well regarded careers, I think it tends to be more of an issue. If a well paid high status earner pairs up with someone who has no career path and stacks shelves just to pay the bills, I can see that it's easier to carve out roles where one person earns and one stays home. But partnerships like this are far less common than they used to be (as I said in above post). People tend to be attracted towards their intellectual equals.

alfiesbabe - I don't understand your post.

My couple relationship is entirely separate from the "jobs" we do to maintain our lifestyle. All the jobs get in the way of "us" - we were pretty miserable last night at the end of our 10 day holiday, knowing that work/school/chores were going to start again this morning. Which in no way means we don't like work/school/chores - we do - but we just love having time for us without all those things.

I did stress in my post that Quattro was making a broad, not direct link to the issue of SAHM and the Austrian cellar case. I still think it was inappropriate and that really you cannot compare Austrian society to that in the UK. I also don't accept that we live in a patriacal society. Mine and DP's background are working class, and this tends to be, certainly from my experience very much matriachal. Please don't feel the need to explain, in simple terms other people's posts for me alfiesbabe. I think I'm perfectly capable of understanding them for myself.

The girl who escaped the FLDS and wrote a book about it was one of the last of the girls in that polygamous mormon group who had been allowed to go to college. Women certanily who are uneducated are more downtrodden and easier to control. They may actually then be happy in a domestic role so perhaps if you know really your daughters are likely to stay home it does them a disservice to educate them too much. That was always the traditional british view anyway and is a similar view in much of the world still. By opening their eyes to the fact they can be surgeons and world leaders you make them unhappy when their fate is ironing a man's shirts and singing wheels on the bus for hte next 8 years. Of course my view is they should be as likely as their husband to carry on work when they have children. It is always the women who make the sacrifice bar a very small 250,000 UK house husbands.

"I'd certainly feel I'd messed up if I had to give my partner a huge pay-off!!" - very sexist surely that. If you accept women and men are equal and can both work you have to accept a woman may well pay out to a man on divorce. If you think women should be financial dependent on men then of course the comment is appropriate. I think most women still prefer their men to earn more and for them to stay home when they have children which if you have 3 or even 5 like me can span about 10 - 15 years and is really most of the material part of your working life. Not easy to get back into most professions in your 40s at all.

But as I said not all men do treat their wives differently when the woman gives up paid work so some people may be lucky but there are so many mumsnet threads about men who won't dole out money to men, who spend more on themselves, who have hidden bank accounts, who think the woman is sitting around all day idly who expect the woman to deal with the children at weekends too because they don't feel as competent as she is because of the inequality and sexism in their relationship.

"but there are so many mumsnet threads about men who won't dole out money "etc. Could that be because it's mumsnet and unlikely that there would be many men posting those things on here Or is it that if it doesn't happen on mumsnet, it doesn't happen

There aer bound to be men (and a few women) who see their money as theirs particularly when they earn over £100k or £500k when it probably is worth more in value to the services of the housewife indeed when a spouse earns that level probably the housewife has a nanny and housekeeper and gardener too so in a sense she's bringing even less value to the table in terms of services and some people, not all, then don't regard a 50/50 split or everything shared as fair.

For the record I have two degrees .

Or perhaps the SAHM who has a nanny/housekeeper/gardener/chauffeur etc to relieve her from domestic toil thereby frees up her time to bring much more in the way of emotional and intellectual input to the family?

My paternal grandmother always had 10-15 servants (including a nanny for each of the first four of her five children), children in full-time boarding school from 5 or 7 so very little in the way of domestic toil (though she did fully breastfeed her children in unhygienic India) but she was undoubtedly of huge intellectual and emotional support to my grandfather (a high-flyer in the Indian Civil Service).

Both my grandparents had Cambridge Firsts and my grandmother remained one of the most intellectually challenging and informed people I have ever met, right until her deathbed in her 90s.

Xenia, I think ou will find a thread on the inequalities of a husbands finacialgenerosity is far more likely than "oh my husband is equal, kind, corteous". Unfortunately we are far more likely to moan than heap praise. I am sure there are plenty of SAHMs on here that are more than happy with the balance of their relationship, just don't shout it from the roof tops.

As you have said on many occasion you can't understand why women become SAHMs and have never in 23 years of being a parent done so, so why to you claim to know so much about how wrong it is?

Dh and I are equal. We are both intellegent, well educated, worldly, well travelled, cultured, he just spends his day in an office being a lawyer with a pay cheque, I spend mine all over the place doing a miriade of other things, just without the pay check. A SAHM isn't all about wiping bums, cooking, cleaning and being a general dogsbody!

Yes! I'll get some servants! Then I too can be intellectually challenging and informed.

Can you still get the ones who dress you and everything so you look beautiful at the dinner table?

Janni - my grandmother was no glamour puss. A true bluestocking, actually .