I’m happy being a SAHM, except when others talk about it like I’m some kind of sucker

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those who weren't listening the first time - the problem is wage stagnation that has made most families NEED to have two full time working parents in order to afford a home with at least two bedrooms, a working car, etc.

Just think what our society could be like if part time work paid well (thus removing the need for full time day care) or if it wasn't a huge financial risk for a family to live on only one paycheck.

We are sheep. . .

THIS.


I wanted to be a SAHM but economically it was simply not feasible. I had an abortion with the mindset that later when we were more established it could work, at least temporarily. Later didn’t happen in that relationship - I think regret over the abortion, which we both chose but very reluctantly, ruined us - and ultimately I ended up childless after suffering a second trimester miscarriage in a later relationship when I was established in my career and really wasn’t sure how I’d manage to stay home for more than 12 weeks.

Our supports for childbearing in this country are really garbage, and with the increasing pressures of a declining birth rate largely because so many people can’t afford them, hopefully this will finally change. I’d like to see us invest in all kinds of families the way Iceland does - where even becoming a single mother isn’t an obstacle to getting an education and participation in the job market as much as one desires.

I would have loved to be a SAHM, probably for at least 5-10 years. I believe I have the qualities to have been a very good mom. But I also have been very enriched by my education and my career, and in my work I have contributed as greatly to society as good parenting would have done - maybe more.

I just think we need an economy that allows for all the choices to be truly free choices that don’t impose serious limitations on the ability to engage in other aspects of the human experience. Some women or men might want to be home for decades and never work beyond the home or school/community volunteering, others might want to do each part time, others might want to really focus on career. Excellent affordable (government subsidized, low cost or free) childcare would provide for all those choices, and open the door to increasing the quality of childcare across the board in this country. Perhaps parents who stay home should get a carer’s allowance that reflects the true value of this work in our society, and prevents families that choose that option from being penalized financially. And maybe all jobs across the board should not only offer equal pay for equal work, but a mandate on time off/phone and computers off so people are working a humane schedule and not exploited by rampant capitalism. Studies show a marked decrease in longevity of people who work 55+ hours a week - why do we insist on a work culture that celebrates overwork and workaholism?

Maybe someday Americans will make the connection that all of these things are at the root of the sickness of mind and body that is so prevalent in our society. Even so many of the so-called elites, the DCUMs of our society, are suffering the same ills of substance use disorders, other mental health disorders, marital breakdown, chronic illness and early deaths. Wealth doesn’t protect anyone from these things. We really need a fundamental rethink of what makes a successful life.

I’m not holding my breath. More often than not these days when I see what our society has become and is continuing to become, I’m glad not to have brought another soul - especially another female soul - into it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think SAHMs who do not want to stay at home are suckers. If my income had been necessary for us to buy a home I would not have had any children.

Well those are odd values.

I know what I like. I never wanted kids in that do-anything-under-any-circumstances fashion that many do. I would never have intentionally become a single mother either. Why make an inherently challenging situation even harder?

[Anonymous]

Surely you see that on a societal level worldwide, the economic disempowerment of women and corresponding lack of educational and professional opportunities is due to the idea that they SHOULD sacrifice themselves to stay home. That raising kids and taking care of the home for no pay is their role.

It’s fine if you choose to stay home and like your situation, but understand that you’re probably more privileged than the vast majority of SAHMs.

As for being a SAHM, I also think it’s ok to acknowledge that it is a high burnout job that isn’t for everyone. A lot of people struggle with it, more than really enjoy it. Housekeeping involves a lot of thankless repetitive tasks and caring for young kids round the clock can be very draining as you can barely get a break to think or tend to your own needs. I was lucky to be able to WFH with very flexible hours during the pandemic and there were parts of it I enjoyed and parts that really felt wearing after a year. I do think it entails some sacrifice of self for many women to conform to this traditional role and it’s fine to acknowledge that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And in this case that person was Barak Obama.

I just heard an interview with him on an NPR podcast, and he said something about how Michelle’s mom had stretches where she was “just” a SAHM, and too often it’s women who make that sacrifice when they really should be working.

I really like Obama, and I’m a feminist, but seriously?

Especially after Covid I’m just not convinced that I’m the one making a “sacrifice”. Maybe my DH is the one sacrificing family time in order to work? And he likes his job but it’s hardly a “calling”, and it sure as heck isn’t a hobby. As far as I can tell I chose to SAH, I wasn’t suckered into it. There are good things and bad things about SAH, and there are good things and bad things about working. I wish our policies encouraged women AND men to SAH for stretches (a year or two) with young kids, and facilitated that choice with family leave policies or tax breaks (while also facilitating affordable day care for parents who want to work).

Anyway. I’m happy with my choice 90% of the time but it’s sucks to hear someone I admire denigrate my choices.

My friend lives in a country like that. Years of family leave for both parents. I will say it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. She and her husband cared for their kids round the clock instead of getting help and it was detrimental to their mental and physical health. Families need more support and people need more flexibility, but I disagree that it’s less stressful to be home all day with your baby. For many people it’s amazing to have help and to be able to compartmentalize your life a little so you get to express different sides of yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And in this case that person was Barak Obama.

I just heard an interview with him on an NPR podcast, and he said something about how Michelle’s mom had stretches where she was “just” a SAHM, and too often it’s women who make that sacrifice when they really should be working.

I really like Obama, and I’m a feminist, but seriously?

Especially after Covid I’m just not convinced that I’m the one making a “sacrifice”. Maybe my DH is the one sacrificing family time in order to work? And he likes his job but it’s hardly a “calling”, and it sure as heck isn’t a hobby. As far as I can tell I chose to SAH, I wasn’t suckered into it. There are good things and bad things about SAH, and there are good things and bad things about working. I wish our policies encouraged women AND men to SAH for stretches (a year or two) with young kids, and facilitated that choice with family leave policies or tax breaks (while also facilitating affordable day care for parents who want to work).

Anyway. I’m happy with my choice 90% of the time but it’s sucks to hear someone I admire denigrate my choices.

Sorry you're in your feelings but you're all over the place here. He said it's often women who are the ones to sacrifice their careers/incomes to raise kids, and you disagree that it's a sacrifice because you don't want to work and chose to SAH, but also you wish policies encouraged both men and women to SAH? Why do men need to be encouraged if it's not a sacrifice?

Some people want to stay home. Some have to because of childcare expenses and inflexible work schedules. When it's not a first choice, it's a sacrifice. Most of the time, women are the ones who make that sacrifice. If SAH is what you always wanted to do and you're happy and don't feel like you're sacrificing, you're not the topic of conversation. "If it don't apply, let it fly." It's like hearing someone talk about how they gave up meat for Lent and getting pissed off that they say it's been hard because you were raised vegetarian and have no desire to eat meat. Everything is not about you.

For most women, it's not a sacrifice, it's a choice. They want to be home. For most men, it would be a sacrifice, because they would rather be at work. So yes, men need to be encouraged because it is a sacrifice for them, and women conversely need societal encouragement to go to work because many would rather be at home.

Citation needed.

+1

You won't find this to be true among pretty much all the women I know. Nice try, though.

Really? You know lots of SAHMs who would rather be at work? I'm guessing since you work you only associate with women who work, and therefore won't admit that they'd rather be home, because they need to work for money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who weren't listening the first time - the problem is wage stagnation that has made most families NEED to have two full time working parents in order to afford a home with at least two bedrooms, a working car, etc.

Just think what our society could be like if part time work paid well (thus removing the need for full time day care) or if it wasn't a huge financial risk for a family to live on only one paycheck.

We are sheep. . .

THIS.


I wanted to be a SAHM but economically it was simply not feasible. I had an abortion with the mindset that later when we were more established it could work, at least temporarily. Later didn’t happen in that relationship - I think regret over the abortion, which we both chose but very reluctantly, ruined us - and ultimately I ended up childless after suffering a second trimester miscarriage in a later relationship when I was established in my career and really wasn’t sure how I’d manage to stay home for more than 12 weeks.

Our supports for childbearing in this country are really garbage, and with the increasing pressures of a declining birth rate largely because so many people can’t afford them, hopefully this will finally change. I’d like to see us invest in all kinds of families the way Iceland does - where even becoming a single mother isn’t an obstacle to getting an education and participation in the job market as much as one desires.

I would have loved to be a SAHM, probably for at least 5-10 years. I believe I have the qualities to have been a very good mom. But I also have been very enriched by my education and my career, and in my work I have contributed as greatly to society as good parenting would have done - maybe more.

I just think we need an economy that allows for all the choices to be truly free choices that don’t impose serious limitations on the ability to engage in other aspects of the human experience. Some women or men might want to be home for decades and never work beyond the home or school/community volunteering, others might want to do each part time, others might want to really focus on career. Excellent affordable (government subsidized, low cost or free) childcare would provide for all those choices, and open the door to increasing the quality of childcare across the board in this country. Perhaps parents who stay home should get a carer’s allowance that reflects the true value of this work in our society, and prevents families that choose that option from being penalized financially. And maybe all jobs across the board should not only offer equal pay for equal work, but a mandate on time off/phone and computers off so people are working a humane schedule and not exploited by rampant capitalism. Studies show a marked decrease in longevity of people who work 55+ hours a week - why do we insist on a work culture that celebrates overwork and workaholism?

Maybe someday Americans will make the connection that all of these things are at the root of the sickness of mind and body that is so prevalent in our society. Even so many of the so-called elites, the DCUMs of our society, are suffering the same ills of substance use disorders, other mental health disorders, marital breakdown, chronic illness and early deaths. Wealth doesn’t protect anyone from these things. We really need a fundamental rethink of what makes a successful life.

I’m not holding my breath. More often than not these days when I see what our society has become and is continuing to become, I’m glad not to have brought another soul - especially another female soul - into it.

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Also, I am sorry about your miscarriage and I agree the choices are terrible. I also waited to have kids when the "time was right" and then when we struggled we got a lot of judgment about having been selfish in waiting too long. There is really no way to win and the deck is stacked against you unless you and/or your family is wealthy. When I decided to SAHM, a big part of it was just being exhausted from working for 20 years and going through fertility issues and a difficult and scary pregnancy, and just needing to be allowed to focus on one thing for a little bit. It wasn't a calling and it wasn't a sacrifice. It really felt like the only sane option. I find it bizarre when I see political discussions like this about it because the choice was not political for my family. I did worry I was being a "bad feminist" but then I decided I'd rather be a bad feminist than a miserable one. And in the end of landed on the same conclusion you have -- the politics of this cannot be found in personal choices but in the collective choices we make about what decisions to support/encourage, and which to punish and discourage.

[Anonymous]

Im a SAHM currently due to the pandemic but really want and need to get back to work. SAHMing is not really contributing to society, to my family maybe. Im highly educated and have lots of experience. I could be a productive member of society, but im just sitting on the sidelines now, applying for work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Surely you see that on a societal level worldwide, the economic disempowerment of women and corresponding lack of educational and professional opportunities is due to the idea that they SHOULD sacrifice themselves to stay home. That raising kids and taking care of the home for no pay is their role.

It’s fine if you choose to stay home and like your situation, but understand that you’re probably more privileged than the vast majority of SAHMs.

As for being a SAHM, I also think it’s ok to acknowledge that it is a high burnout job that isn’t for everyone. A lot of people struggle with it, more than really enjoy it. Housekeeping involves a lot of thankless repetitive tasks and caring for young kids round the clock can be very draining as you can barely get a break to think or tend to your own needs. I was lucky to be able to WFH with very flexible hours during the pandemic and there were parts of it I enjoyed and parts that really felt wearing after a year. I do think it entails some sacrifice of self for many women to conform to this traditional role and it’s fine to acknowledge that.

Housekeeping is different from childcare as you pointed out. SAHMs should be responsible for childcare, they are not the family maid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those who weren't listening the first time - the problem is wage stagnation that has made most families NEED to have two full time working parents in order to afford a home with at least two bedrooms, a working car, etc.

Just think what our society could be like if part time work paid well (thus removing the need for full time day care) or if it wasn't a huge financial risk for a family to live on only one paycheck.

We are sheep. . .

I agree that wage stagnation is an issue, but I disagree that the fundamental problem is that households need two incomes. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with two people who have kids wanting to work outside their homes.

Some key issues are, IMHO:
- Our focus on nuclear families without really enabling community or multi-generational support in the way humans have raised kids for millennia.
- Our culture of over-work. We don't need part-time work, necessarily. We need work-life balance. I'd settle for true 40 hour work weeks and better alignment between school and working hours.
- A shortage of high quality childcare, which is closely related to undervaluing this work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surely you see that on a societal level worldwide, the economic disempowerment of women and corresponding lack of educational and professional opportunities is due to the idea that they SHOULD sacrifice themselves to stay home. That raising kids and taking care of the home for no pay is their role.

It’s fine if you choose to stay home and like your situation, but understand that you’re probably more privileged than the vast majority of SAHMs.

As for being a SAHM, I also think it’s ok to acknowledge that it is a high burnout job that isn’t for everyone. A lot of people struggle with it, more than really enjoy it. Housekeeping involves a lot of thankless repetitive tasks and caring for young kids round the clock can be very draining as you can barely get a break to think or tend to your own needs. I was lucky to be able to WFH with very flexible hours during the pandemic and there were parts of it I enjoyed and parts that really felt wearing after a year. I do think it entails some sacrifice of self for many women to conform to this traditional role and it’s fine to acknowledge that.

Housekeeping is different from childcare as you pointed out. SAHMs should be responsible for childcare, they are not the family maid.

Oh come on... you know that’s not how it works for the vast majority of SAHMs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And in this case that person was Barak Obama.

I just heard an interview with him on an NPR podcast, and he said something about how Michelle’s mom had stretches where she was “just” a SAHM, and too often it’s women who make that sacrifice when they really should be working.

I really like Obama, and I’m a feminist, but seriously?

Especially after Covid I’m just not convinced that I’m the one making a “sacrifice”. Maybe my DH is the one sacrificing family time in order to work? And he likes his job but it’s hardly a “calling”, and it sure as heck isn’t a hobby. As far as I can tell I chose to SAH, I wasn’t suckered into it. There are good things and bad things about SAH, and there are good things and bad things about working. I wish our policies encouraged women AND men to SAH for stretches (a year or two) with young kids, and facilitated that choice with family leave policies or tax breaks (while also facilitating affordable day care for parents who want to work).

Anyway. I’m happy with my choice 90% of the time but it’s sucks to hear someone I admire denigrate my choices.

Yeah and I wish single people were paid by the government to take a year off and discover what they want to do with their life.

Pay for your own years of SAHP.

This is the most nonsensical comment. What a ridiculous argument. Go back to bed.

NP. Nope. Your choice to SAH is not going to be government-subsidized, nor should it be. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

I just finished The Second Shift. It’s just wonderful. Every parent should read it. After reading that the two biggest issues I see are: lack of well paid part time jobs due to toxic workist culture and that the work of raising children/maintaining a home has been devalued. Among the elite, this means it gets passed to lower class women. In my house, it just doesn’t get done or I do the work (although now I’m doing it with my kids).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree 100% with you, OP. I don't think other posters are right that you're reading into it. There is the assumption in the democratic party that women are only SAHM's when they are forced into it/duped into it, and all women would be better off if they were working.

I am also very happy that I became a SAHM, but yes, it does get depressing when people in power are always suggesting that I'm dumb/victim of the patriarchy/stuck in a role, etc. It's just depressing to be looked down on.

It was so refreshing when Andrew Yang spoke positively about his SAH wife in the debates.

I honestly went to a therapist about a year after having my first child to ask her if she could tell me whether or not I was fooling myself that I liked being a SAHM. She said that it used to be that women had to stay home, and now the pendulum has swung the other way and all women feel forced to be a working mom. Her focus was actually child psychology (it just happened that she was the closest therapist to me) and she was really supportive of me staying home and told me she sees a lot of kids in her practice who have problems because their parents are too focused on theri big careers.

I also think another thing being totally ignored is that there are so many women out there who would love to stay home with their babies but can't because they have to go back to work. To me, it borders on inhumane that we live in a society where some women are forced to be separated from their babies just to be able to afford basic necessities. I think that's the real tragedy, not someone who has to spend the day with their baby (the horror!) when they would prefer to be working. I don't know why we don't talk about this more.

WOW. You need to visit some other countries (not just the rich vacation countries, or the rich resort parts of poor countries) and find out what "inhumane" treatment actually is, because having to have gainful employment as an adult while your child is in childcare for part of the day at most 5 days a week is NOT it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And in this case that person was Barak Obama.

I just heard an interview with him on an NPR podcast, and he said something about how Michelle’s mom had stretches where she was “just” a SAHM, and too often it’s women who make that sacrifice when they really should be working.

I really like Obama, and I’m a feminist, but seriously?

Especially after Covid I’m just not convinced that I’m the one making a “sacrifice”. Maybe my DH is the one sacrificing family time in order to work? And he likes his job but it’s hardly a “calling”, and it sure as heck isn’t a hobby. As far as I can tell I chose to SAH, I wasn’t suckered into it. There are good things and bad things about SAH, and there are good things and bad things about working. I wish our policies encouraged women AND men to SAH for stretches (a year or two) with young kids, and facilitated that choice with family leave policies or tax breaks (while also facilitating affordable day care for parents who want to work).

Anyway. I’m happy with my choice 90% of the time but it’s sucks to hear someone I admire denigrate my choices.

Yeah and I wish single people were paid by the government to take a year off and discover what they want to do with their life.

Pay for your own years of SAHP.

This is the most nonsensical comment. What a ridiculous argument. Go back to bed.

NP. Nope. Your choice to SAH is not going to be government-subsidized, nor should it be. Sorry.

Oh my goooooooddddd go find or start DC Urban Childless Millennials or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree 100% with you, OP. I don't think other posters are right that you're reading into it. There is the assumption in the democratic party that women are only SAHM's when they are forced into it/duped into it, and all women would be better off if they were working.

I am also very happy that I became a SAHM, but yes, it does get depressing when people in power are always suggesting that I'm dumb/victim of the patriarchy/stuck in a role, etc. It's just depressing to be looked down on.

It was so refreshing when Andrew Yang spoke positively about his SAH wife in the debates.

I honestly went to a therapist about a year after having my first child to ask her if she could tell me whether or not I was fooling myself that I liked being a SAHM. She said that it used to be that women had to stay home, and now the pendulum has swung the other way and all women feel forced to be a working mom. Her focus was actually child psychology (it just happened that she was the closest therapist to me) and she was really supportive of me staying home and told me she sees a lot of kids in her practice who have problems because their parents are too focused on theri big careers.

I also think another thing being totally ignored is that there are so many women out there who would love to stay home with their babies but can't because they have to go back to work. To me, it borders on inhumane that we live in a society where some women are forced to be separated from their babies just to be able to afford basic necessities. I think that's the real tragedy, not someone who has to spend the day with their baby (the horror!) when they would prefer to be working. I don't know why we don't talk about this more.

WOW. You need to visit some other countries (not just the rich vacation countries, or the rich resort parts of poor countries) and find out what "inhumane" treatment actually is, because having to have gainful employment as an adult while your child is in childcare for part of the day at most 5 days a week is NOT it.

I do think it is inhumane how many women are forced by economic circumstances and terrible workplace policies to return to work within 2 weeks of giving birth. There may be women who are happy with that arrangement but it's not typical and for most women, that is a wrenching position to be in. Not to mention that many women have still not recovered from childbirth fully by 14 days later, and that the jobs most likely to require an early return often are jobs that require people to be on their feet for long periods of time or doing physically arduous labor. Yes, that is inhumane. The fact that there are more inhumane conditions elsewhere in the world does not negate that fact. Plus, you really want to compare the US, the actual richest country in the world, to the worlds poorest countries and then pat ourselves on the back because we aren't doing as poorly as counties dealing with widespread poverty, violent conflict, famine, and disease? That's embarrassing. It is proper to compare the policies in the US to nations like the UK, Germany, Japan, and other wealthy nations because those are more similarly situated countries.

(Also, guess what -- a lot of poor countries still have more humane policies towards pregnant women and families because they are not obsessed with corporate and shareholder profits. That doesn't mean they don't have other problems, but it's actually incredibly unusual in the world to have no guaranteed maternity leave for working women. The US really is backwards in this respect.)