Likened to a prostitute for being a wife?!

[Amaia10]

This is what a female "friend' said to me today - that the fact that I don't work and depend on my husband for income means that I am totally at his disposal and basically a kind of prostitute!

Ok she's only one person and obviously very proud of the fact she works in insurance and pays for an after school childminder, but I do find its other women who are the most judgemental about SAHMs, housewives, homemakers - don't even know what to call myself!

We have 3 children and I have been "at home" for 12 years or so since my eldest was born. I'll be quite honest that when we got married DH told me that he wanted me to be at home for our kids, rather than a childcare situation and because he needed to focus in his career. I had recently completed an MA, but was working as a dancer when I met DH (ballet, not lap dancing I should say)! Then I found myself in a situation where his income meant that I didn't need to work. I love being around for the kids and it just works for us. DH respects what I do, all the more so because he was packed off to some hideous boarding school at the age of 7 and followed his father and brothers into the military because that's just what they did in his family. So he had never really had a home life until he left the marines after we got married.

But does the fact that I was also happy to be around for the kids mean that I should have no self-respect or can't be considered a feminist because I don't earn my own money?

It very "chicken and egg", isn't it?

And the cost of childcare in London is definitely a big factor! I can confirm, having worked in typically badly paid arts / media job there. At one point I was making about £20 a week "profit" after the childminder and travel costs had been paid. Add a suprise second pregnancy and DH being offered a job on another continent (in a place where my former job doesn't even really exist) and here I am, a SAHM.... And DH's career has indeed benefitted.

It may all be work, CherryPicking, but it is generally only SAHMs that get compared to prostitutes.

Presumably because people think taking care of children is so completely and utterly pointless that the only reason a man would share his income with a SAHM was for sex.

I think this is more about self identification and value. since the last child has stated school, the op could start work but doesn't. I think this is the crux in the id crisis for the op. there is a legitimacy in staying at home for the u 5s that there isn't post this. even if the op doesn't need the money.

It may all be work, CherryPicking, but it is generally only SAHMs that get compared to prostitutes

Presumably because people think taking care of children is so completely and utterly pointless that the only reason a man would share his income with a SAHM was for sex

But who apart from the lunatic fringe of the feminist movement and the lunatic fringe of the MRA movements think this ?

I think that people who marry for money are like prostitutes, though prostitutes have more freedom and are more honest. I live in Mexico and there is a lot of women marrying for money here.

But as for being SAHP, I think that is the most valuable job in the world and I say that as someone who never did that except in times of unemployment. Feminism in the 60s and 70s was majorly about competing with men for "men"'s jobs, but we really must have moved on a realised how important traditionally "female" jobs are and stop buying into the idea that only jobs that men think are important are important.

I love being around for the kids and it just works for us

^^

This.

As a family this is what works for you.

Everyone is different, being at home looking after children would be a special kind of hell for me regardless of how much a partner might earn.

I would not enter in to a marriage where I was expected to do that but that doesn't mean no one else should and I have friends who are in a similar situation to you OP.

Totally agree with Dozer and Mrsfrumble. This concept that men must be facilitated and enabled to work long hours, be workaholics, in order to pay for school fees etc is really damaging IMO. Damaging not only in terms of the inequality and expectation it CAN bring to a marriage /parenting (being 'told' to be a SAHM!!!), to society in terms of expectations of people working FT (that they can drop family commitments and travel/work late at a moment's notice - not necessarily possible with two WOHPs and a real issue for SAHPs wanting to get back into the workplace) , and in terms of modelling behaviour to DCs ( not necessarily re WOH/SAH but in terms of being present).

However that is an aside to the prostitution question, which doesn't seem like a correct analogy at all. My issue with the SAHM/WOHD set up is not the SAHM element. But the WOHD who very often is away all week, working ridiculously long hours, travelling etc etc. In order supposedly to fund an idyllic family life. To me, the 'idyllic' family life INCLUDES the paternal input if at all possible.

( If my DH told me I had to be a SAHM, i would be upset that he felt i was someone whose life he felt he had the right to determine. This is the part of the OP that dusplsts inequality).

men reaching senior high paid roles should theoretically be well placed to change working culture But they don't. They perpetuate it. Because it suits them. And because they see no need to.

And if a family can afford to pay school fees, they can afford childcare fees surely, even if they live in London!

Locating, is feminism about choice for women or not perpetuating traditional roles for the male and female?

If the former, and women are indeed preferring to stay at home, then this can be a feminist choice.

If the latter, then choosing a traditional role is not considered a feminist choice. However this is frowning upon women's free choice to stay at home, which is just as subjugating as being forced into a traditional role.

Personally I am a SAHP. However I still believe in family friendly working practises. Should I not? Because they do not perpetuate me being the SAHP? Without them, (they do exist where my DH works) maybe my DH would be stronger competition...

The thing is, if everyone were to advocate practises which supported just their own choices, working practises might be a lot worse for women, what with the statistics quoted upthread. Perhaps it would be a good idea for women to support each other's choices instead?

I don't think working PT or SaH is a free choice though, it's based on economics, societal expectations etc. 50% of mothers SaH but only a tiny proportion of fathers: if it were a free choice, many more men would make it IMO.

Perhaps I've not been clear. I think family friendly working policies are of the utmost importance (both DH and I have them in our work place and would not be able to manage without them). I applaud you for your support of them, and I think they are just as important to the SAHP, as to the WOHP.
However, in many cases, the role of enabler/facilitator to the earner/higher earner, means that the non/lower earner must be fully supportive of whatever hours/travel the higher earner is expected/wants to do. The higher earner therefore perpetuates the model that they are free agents to focus on work and money ( for these are of course key to overall family happiness ).
I'm not sure how women's choices are improved in this sort of situation.

I totally accept that by conforming to the High flying wohd,SAHw model we have taken the easy option. Which is why I am a very supportve friend to those parents of my kids friends where both parents work. I hugely value the fact that some of my friends have taken the more difficult route of continuing to work, which will help make it more possible in the future to combine a full on career and parenting. So I do more than my share of teenage taxi-ing and sleepovers for my friends, whilst they do more of their share of changing the world.

The only way to know, Dozer is to ask the women that SAH. I do and wanted to. However, I will say there can be some element of 'burning your bridges' to the decision. This would be less alienating if the SAH choice was more supported amongst other women. As it is both women who SAH and WOH get a raw deal, partly because of the lack of support from other women, regardless of how men behave.

Hi -back again and reading everyone's honest perspectives is so helpful.

Hellofabird - you got me thinking with your comment that you can spot the men with SAHMs in your workplace and you experience them as having an unfair advantage. Well yes, I can quite see that of course. These men can be totally work - focused and because they never have to think about basic life skills like food shopping, whether their clothes are ready, are the kids sorted for the day and so on. And I'm not at all surprised they are nearly all men. I think even the most high powered women find it more difficult to switch off from the day to day details of having children. One female friend who has always maintained an amazing career often tells me how her mind wanders in board meetings because she suddenly remembers she forgot to give one of her kids their lunch money or something.

On the other hand, there are loads of men (round here they may well be in the majority) who for whatever reason are hard-wired to think that all the financial responsibility of having a family falls on them, regardless of what anyone, including their wives, will tell them to the contrary. In most cases, they will either be very successful or have a breakdown or perhaps both. And they are equally at risk of depression as any SAHM.

I'm not complaining about our lives at all - far from it! I've probably done 95 per cent of the childcare but I never had the burden of worrying where the money is going to come from. There are millions of single mums who do more than I do without any financial or emotional support whatsoever.

DH is actually a very thoughtful and loving man and he will always say that he thinks that the work women do around the world is the most important thing there is -( well, he would say that wouldn't he)!

"Which is why I am a very supportve friend to those parents of my kids friends where both parents work"

Yes, me too. I am always very irritated by posters on here saying "I chose to be a SAHM to be with my children- I'm not taking on anyone else's"

i've also always done paid and unpaid work, both at home and sometimes outside the home, making sure the children know why and what I'm doing. We've also always talked a lot about why we (much emphasis on the "we") made the specific decisions we did about work and child care- and the different decisions other people make. We've also been very clear to them that we were incredibly lucky to be in a position to make the choices we did- and (maybe channelling Xenia a bit here!) that a good education and a good career path ultimately gives you more choices.

Another thing I forgot- we also made a very conscious decision about how we talk about and use money. We agreed that there would never be the slightest hint of "We'll have to ask Daddy"

"you experience them as having an unfair advantage"

That isn't what I said. They have an advantage in their careers, sure, but DH and I have other advantages re balance etc.

If caring responsibilities are part of one's remit, of course one thinks about them occasionally during the day. Both DH and I have good jobs; he definitely does more family admin than me during the working day though. It's socialisation at work in your group, OP.

Locating well I've never been the kind of person to totally support my DH being a workaholic who does no childcare or housework. I discussed when we had our DC how important it is to be involved if he wanted to be close to them. So he changed nappies, does cooking, irons shirts, cleaning etc. The traditional types have frowned on this from time to time (MiL, BiL), since that is what SAHMs are 'meant to do'. I have heard this argument on here too. However, thankfully, my DH does not think like this.

And- sorry again. It was always very clear that he and I had equal "time off" And that he was just as capable a carer as I was. Too many children are being shown that men are somehow less able to look after children than women- and this is an awful thing to be modeling to them. This, ridiculously, meant that I sometimes had lie ins I didn't want and weekends away when I didn't particularly want to go ..................

TBH in my workplace most men with children have partners who are also working and most of them have childcare responsibilities ie: picking up dropping off etc. Some men are on compressed hours to assist with childcare. This is public sector thiough.

"TBH in my workplace most men with children have partners who are also working and most of them have childcare responsibilities ie: picking up dropping off etc. Some men are on compressed hours to assist with childcare. This is public sector thiough."

That's really good to hear. Who gets the call from school if a child has thrown up?

Bert, at our school, we put down the order of preference for calling, whoever is called though rings the other one and a discussion is had about diaries for that day and coming days (assuming a 48h exclusion)

I'd love to know how many "first contacts" are fathers, even when both parents woh.

I'm not actually sure which way round ours are now, Bert. I've never seen it as an issue as we always contact each other anyway, ditto if a child is too ill to go in after one has left for work.