Don't give up work to be a SAHM unless

[akaemmafrost]

You have a HEFTY private income or can work from home.

I gave up work, usual reasons, wages would barely cover childcare, WE wanted kids to be at home with a parent.

Fast forward. I now have two dc, the father of my dc cheated on me, physically, emotionally and financially abused me.

One of my dc has SN and cannot attend school for the moment.

I've been out of work for 10 years now, I have no profession. In 6 years time our child support will stop as will most of our benefits. I will near fifty having not worked at all for 18 years.

My future is shit. Utterly grey and bleak. All I have to look forward to is a state pension. While my ex earns a fortune, travels the world and has new relationships.

This is reality for me. So think long and hard about giving up work to stay at home because no matter how shit your job is it's preferable to my future don't you think?

And it was all decided for me by a man who decided he hated me and didn't want to be married anymore and a child being diagnosed with significant SN.

It's that simple.

Duelling but surely you have to make choices based on what has happened to people you know, or the possibility of what might happen? How else does anyone make a decision about most things? Moving house/schooling/job change, all of these you make a balanced choice over. Many people don't seem to think too far ahead when it comes to kids, and women are especially too trusting of their partners, IME. Thinking the of the worst case scenario doesn't make it happen, it just prepares you for the worst.

OP I hope you find more to keep you happy and this is a recent split. It can be hard to keep your head up, but keep going. You sound like a fab mum.

Of course, things can go wrong in your life even if you are working and building a career: you could get ill/injured to the point you are unable to work, your job (and practically every job you are capable of doing) could be rendered obsolete when you are a bit old to retrain - and even if you do retrain, employers want younger people... It still doesn't make it a good idea to put yourself totally in the hands of your partner just because you love him, and because he's the Man, and you have been brought up on the idea that The Man is what you need. While society still sees the Perfect Family as one with The Man at the head of it and the Wife'n'Kids in the background, life is going to remain harder for women. Men are not socialised to expect to make sacrifices for their children; they're told to expect their wives to take care of all that.

Of course, the one thing that would really help would be very cheap childcare that was available 24/7

And no, hard-of-thinking misogynists, that wouldn't mean selfish career bitches never seeing their own kids. it would mean that mothers could take on evening jobs while their kids are sleeping in the care of a responsible adult. For example.

To create the impression that working gives you lifelong immunity to financial struggle is wrong.

Whoever thinks that?

Maintaining your employability is a heck of a good idea though, certainly it can't do your long term financial prospects any harm.

Autumn, while you're grinding your Men are Wonderful axe, you're completely missing the point that anyone's hardworking, decent, loyal husband can die, get sick, or be made redundant and that's the other good reason for holding on to as much financial independence as you can when you become a mother.

Oh yes cabbageleaves me too.

If I relied on my ex, I'd be up the proverbial creek minus a paddle.

Did not think I would ever say this, but where is Xenia when you need her?

Probably busy working, I guess...

It's quite amazing that there is a post suggesting men should shoulder all the financial burden yet women couldn't? This is 2012

Anyway getting past that amazingly sexist defeatist old fashioned drivel.... Regardless of gender, regardless of parenthood, regardless of job.... No one knows what is around the corner. Making yourself reliant on another person is an incredibly big gamble

Sadly too many men and women lose when a hopeful attitude to married finances doesn't give them what they hoped for. Some sort of insurance is good - doesn't have to be employment. Just has to be income.

Yes solid gold, I'm aware of that. Because I lived it. My Dad died when I was at primary school and left three kids and my mum who was a sahm. This was the 1980's and there was no life insurance. She downsized. We had less. We got through it. I'm not sure how her working would've helped any. Except having lost a Father, we'd have then not seen very much of her. So please don't patronise me and assume I'm some naive person who thinks all men are wonderful and immortal.

IMO this doesn't just apply to people who might end up in a divorce situation.

About a year ago I posted a thread on here about sahms who give up work to have a baby and who then find themselves unemployable five, ten years down the line when the kids are at school and employers are looking for relevant experience rather than experience of ten years ago.

Regardless of financial independence there comes a point when most sahms will reconsider needing to go back to work for instance and then finding themselves in a position where they're unable to do so.

I gave up work ten years ago in order to have ds. I started looking for work when we moved here but the reality is that we are in a current employment situation where there are just not enough jobs around for the numbers of unemployed. I did a course and am now in a position where i am starting out with my own business. However in the meantime me and dh have split up and are getting divorced. Fortunately he is being financially fair and I will be ok, but I am still in a position now where I am aiming to seek financial independence ASAP...

So why do you keep pushing an argument that has been shown to not be the general rule? Also you tried to discredit my thread by telling other posters to take it with a big pinch of salt. I don't see where you're coming from if not the all men are great angle.

"How many of us married women could pay the mortgage bills and food shop on our own with no help from a partner? Not very many"

I would struggle but I would manage it, just. I would have to get rid of a few things (tv package/high speed broadband) and use less gas/electricity etc but I could probably manage it. Wouldn't be much left over though, I guess I would rely heavily on tax-credits and other benefits.

Plenty of people live their lives as single people (maybe with some kids) and don't have a problem affording it. Some of us would have to have to make cuts and sacrifices I am sure, and others are probably earning a much higher than average wage so would find it easy.

autumn
As I am the working parent rather than DH obviously I can shoulder all the bills because I already do!

We do have income from investments which could with a bit of juggling allow DH to manage even if I hadn't protected my contribution to the family even if he didn't return to work. The children are school age so there is no reason why he couldn't do some part time work if I wasn't around (hopefully his business will fit that role in a few years anyway).

That's a good point wannabe it's not just relevant to those who find themselves in the sh*t, but also generally anyone who once their kids are less dependent would like to make a career and life independent of their family. The cost of being a SAHM can be so incredibly high and that needs to be common knowledge so we can make informed decisions.

I'm not trying to discredit your thread. I've pointed out that 2 out of 3 marriages work, so being a sahm doesn't necessarily entail years of worry about losing it all. I've opened yet another thread on Mumsnet which leaves me feeling like I've entered a parallel universe

Actually one hopeful thing I remembered today is ds's previous Ed Psych. When I told her I was doing OU she told me that's how she got her degree. She's now got a great career, I would love to do what she does. May not be possible but at least it makes me determined to do the OU and do it well, because it could realistically lead to something.

Yet you seem to be alone in feeling like that..........

autumn please stop making assertions about the law vis a vis divorce.

You are clearly not a divorce lawyer and what you are saying is incorrect. There is no rule that a SAHM gets the house until the DC are 18. There is no rule to say she will get 70% thereafter.

You are making incorrect assumptions based on a few experiences rather than case law.

It is one thing to come on MN looking to be a professionally offended SAHM. That is just annoyoing and boring. But spouting utter rubbish about the law is damaging and potentially dangerous.

On this thread perhaps. You watch. There'll be another one tomorrow or next week worded slightly differently with 30 pages of different responses. The spooky randomness of Mumsnet.

It's also disingenuous to claim that poverty affects men on divorce as much as it does women. As long as more women step out of the workforce to raise children, the cumulative sum of lost earnings and earning potential in an average working life greatly outstrips the cumulative sum of time-limited child/spousal maintenance or one-off asset settlements. It is an inescapably gendered issue.

The whole point of this is that it makes no sense to trust on luck when it comes to your financial survival. Living a life with a partner who will never get ill, disabled, encounter an accident or injury or a penchant for a different life is just down to luck and nothing else.

charbon it is absolutely a gendered issue and considered that by almost everyone involved in divorce law and policy making.

The law tries its very best to rebalance for SAHMs but it can only work with what's on the table. You cannot magic money out of the air.

"2 out of 3 marriages work"

How do you know all of those are actually working? The absence of a Decree Nisi does not mean happiness and equality. No-one knows what goes on behind closed doors.

This isn't a parallel universe, unfortunately, that's the point. Now you may not be able to identify with some of these stories. You may have a fantastic marriage to a kind, generous man and you may feel utterly secure in your choices, unconcerned with financial independence and good for you and anyone like you if that's the case. But there are a lot of unhappy women out there who feel they were sold a 1950s dream of staying home with children while their loving partner/husband provided funds and treated them with respect and something has gone wrong along the way - either maliciously or accidentally - and they now realise that they were premature in giving up so much.

autumn

You do know wordfactory is legally trained and so might have some expertise that you don't.

Just saying

No autumn I did not patronise you.

I simply pointed out that you had tipped from merely ignorant and boring to damaging and dangerous. Just stating the facts.

Satating that women need to protect themselves against vulnerability is not an axe.