To ask for one, simple, summary about all the angry SAHM threads.(461 Posts)
I haven't read them all - but there seem to be lots of SAHMs on here today, moaning that they won't eat help with child are costs.
Have I missed some key piece of information? Have a got it wrong?
Surely the whole point of being a SAHP is so that you don't need childcare?..
As a SAHM I just would like to be able to pass my tax allowance onto the husband - I paid my taxes and if I were to return to work we would have to find X amount to pay for the childcare - instead I am saving that amount by staying home and that rees up a job for someone else - it doesn't mean that we're rich though - just that even with government help on the salary I would be likely to earn we could never afford childcare for 3 kids anyway. I just don't like to be the invisible person. Once you have given up your job for whatever reason - you become invisible to society - we don't want to be paid but we do want to be recognised because we're still here - we still have a say -we still vote etc etc.....
Presumably your DP (and other FT working Dads) "chooses not to bring up his own children", by your logic Startail ? Or do men not count?
When the people who can no longer afford to work become sahp's due to not affording childcare after the cuts, society will change. Because all these people will realise that they too are capable of being a sahp and raising their dc rather than somebody else providing childcare for them. The wind will change because they too will want a voice as a sahp rather than wohp.
Personally, as long as I am doing the best for my family I don't really give a stuff what others say or think.
Vinigar I agree totally if I had had a career to return to then DH and I sharing child care for small DCs to be in credit once they started school would be, absolutely a shared family investment.
As it was it would have meant no financial gain and quite possibly having not split holidays so we never saw each other.
My children are in childcare for 32 hours a week. The other 136 hours they are with me or DH. Are we not bringing them up? startail when your children go to school do you cease to bring them up?
As a SAHM I just would like to be able to pass my tax allowance onto the husband
Couldn't agree more. Well-informed families do this, anyway, by making themselves jointly into a business/partnership even though only one partner is truly working. DH boss even advised us to do this years ago.
Didn't a load of BBC workers get knuckles wrapped for doing the same thing, too?
I think the point was if they are in childcare, wraparound, holiday care etc. You are not raising your children during this time. They are obviously receiving childcare and not being raised during these times. providers are only given permission to care, when you raise your children you are totally responsible for all their needs.
Startail I've never sat down and worked out the exact numbers but in all likelihood we would be better off with one of us working FT (probably me) and one SAH. However, it has never even been considered as an option, before DS was even conceived it was agreed we would split things between us.
As for not seeing each other, yes that's a drawback especially with shift work and nights/evenings/weekend work. Holidays are a headache, too. But how many couples spend all evening in the same room but ignoring each other/watching TV/on 2 laptops? We just try to ensure the time we do have together is not wasted.
I still think your choice of terminology is unnecessary, inaccurate and offensive.
Noone has yet answered who is raising my DS and the other children of WOHPs?!
And also my question about FT working Dads not "raising their own children".
why why why am I engaging
I honestly don't get why SAHM's or Dads expect to be validated by "society" or appreciated by them. Surely the whole point is that you do what's best for your family and they are the on's who appreciate you. And no unfortunately someone who looks after their own children are not going to be respected in the same way as a nurse or Dr or teachers might be.
I am raising my children though. When they are in childcare they are still being raised by me and my DH, they are being looked after by someone else. If your children are school age do you see the teacher as raising them? As someone else said do fathers not raise their children if they work? Attitudes like that are the reason SAHMs lose respect.
In fact I'd say choosing appropriate childcare is a big factor in "raising" children (not a term I like much tbh).
Our choice of nursery has played a huge part in DS's life. It is actually a parent run co-operative so not only do we as a group hire and fire all the staff, we choose trips out, suggest topics/curriculum areas, decide what the children eat, go in and volunteer regularly, choose what to spend the budget on etc etc. Just recently there was a vote on whether to buy an iPad for the nursery.
Obviously this isn't "raising" DS, though
The notion of children being brought up by parents is a relatively modern one.
In the pre-industrial world it was extended family and wider community that provided childcare so that the mother (a young, fit individual) could earn money while those less capable of commanding coin (e.g. the elderly or less able) could perform a useful function by caring for children in return for being provided for themselves.
Only since the industrial revolution and the change of the extended family/wider community to today's far more geographically fluid nuclear families has the idea of mothers providing long-term care for their own children become an expectation, and then only among the better off members of society. Ordinary women have always worked.
Childcare has never had a value attached to it. Because it has always been done by women, for free, it has been consistently devalued, despite the fact that if all women - whether mothers, CMs, nannies or nursery workers - stopped doing it and demanded that the workers benefitting from it cared for the children instead the country would slide to an economic standstill.
When you realise that someone has to care for children, it makes you realise how important childcare is to a post-industrial nation. Once you accept that, it leaves some uncomfortable questions as to what we do about it.
I think standard school hours are a total red herring.
My DF who HE'd for primary is quite a character and no way on earth do I have her dedication.
Yes I do choose to delicate school to someone else. I just don't choose to delicate the bulk of after school or school holidays to a third party, other than DH and ballet etc. sometimes.
Personally I would hate sharing childcare over holidays and so would DH.
We were together 10 years before DD1 came along, we are best friends.
When he can escape work we like to do things together.
Believe me, even with the most antisocial shiftworking hours, if you value your partner you find time to spend with them. In or out of the house.
Why do you see school and nursery as so different? Why is one "OK" by you but one not? It is often the same hours involved.
I also dont get why SAHP's want to feel valused by the state or society. Its a lifestyle choice that affects only that family noody else (well unless other tax payers are paying for the luxury).
As for WOHP's children being raised by others, am still laughing. So all the SAHP never let their children go to school, on playdates, out with family etc. Somehow I dont think so.
Working and juggling children sets a great example to children. They grow up believing they can have the best of both worlds. I hate to think my son will be pressured to take a job he dislikes as his future wife may decide she doesnt fancy working and helping with living expenses. Teachers install in children that they can be anything they want and to aim high, surely we dont want girls believing that once they decide to become a parent that it means they can no longer work and are at the mercy of any adult to provide for their every need in life.
I'm currently on mat leave and will be returning to work in July.
DS is my second (and last) baby and if I could afford to, I'd be a SAHM until he turned 3, at least.
But I can't afford to SAH and I resent people saying I will be dropping him at nursery for someone else to 'bring him up'.
I have to do what I have to do, to provide for my family. It's not what I'd choose to do, in an ideal world but that's life and it's tough shit.
Childcare does have a value attached to it inside families where there is a SAHM though....
my hubby values it immensely and tells me all the time... he would not be able to do the job he does without knowing home/kids/his mum/life in general is "sorted" by me being there. He goes away with work often, he has progressed to twice his expected salary, he has soared in his job knowing his home life is uncomplicated.... he appreciates it and makes sure I'm rewarded for it.
We are a family and do what's best for us - those where both parents work are doing what's best for them.... I do not look for anyone outside of my family to "value" me....
I think it's laughable that working parents are considered by some not to be raising their kids. My boss made an off the cuff remark about my poor kids never seeing me so I soon put him straight - 4 days that they aren't in childcare, 2 hours in the morning and 3 a night before bed plus all the hols...I am raising my children...
And if that were true, than presumably only one parent is typically raising the child (the one who goes out to work obviously can't be involved, either ). Maybe nobody should allowed to go to work if they are a parent of an under 16. I'm sure that would be fine for the economy.
Don't be silly, only women count!
Because, well, otherwise the "raising your own children" argument just turns out to be BS....
Happymumofone - I'm a SAHM and my DH has not been presurised into any job whilst I stay at home not earning. He is able to earn much more than me and we are lucky in that I dont need to work so rather than dropping the children off at a nursery for 8-10 hrs per day 5 days a week, we made the decision that I would give up work. When dh comes home he doesnt have to share the chores because they're already done, so our evenings and weekends are free to do as we please.
I'm happy, dh is happy and the dc are happy. I cant really see that we are not setting a good example to them just because I choose not to work. The way we work is a team, he goes out to work and I do all the chores. It may not be for everyone but it is for us and we are happy. Why should that set a bad example to my children.
As for having it all, well, I really dont think anyone can have it all, whatever your circumstances, something, somewhere always has to give, whether you admit it or not.
What made my hair curl is the statement that now the state will 'reward hard working families'. They could have simply said that the new system will provide better financial support for families with both parents in employment. It's not rocket science really, I think the gov has a way to insult people with idiotic one liners. Reward hard working families... bollocks to that. Looking after children is hard work, not in the same way, but it still is. What a lovely statement from our wonderful government who values traditional families...
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.