To ask if you think SAHMs are lazy?

No, not everyone has extended family on tap to help with free childcare. mine are hundreds of miles away and my own parents still work full time and aren't retiring yet. Also me being at home means my husband can go wherever to earn as the childcare issue is taken care of.

Sugarbeanie They won’t remember whether you were around or mot

You are missing the point. They won’t remember whether you brought them on holidays, to playgrounds, read books, cuddled them when they were upset, held their hand while going for a walk, taught them how to ride a bike, baked cupcakes with them, made handprints and a million other things. Should we all save ourselves all that time and not bother?

I think one big difference in these conversations is the decade you had your dc in.

I think for anyone having kids now it's more difficult then in the past to have a long break & return to a similar position/pay with the flexibility of fitting around school.

@Alongcameacat well yes, but when I mean is that they won't remember if you were around or not, and nursery or whatever isn't exactly a punishment. And yes many do return to part time low paid jobs that loads of people are scrambling for.

I guess because I had children so I could be around them, I didn't like the idea of paying someone else to do that job and I couldn't afford to do so and I didn't like the idea of 'missing out' while they were babies.

@Tadpolesandfroglets so I had 14 months off with each one & then returned to work p/t. The youngest is now in preschool. Would you class that as being around my children? I have 11 wks off so am there for the vast majority of the school holidays & still feel I have strong hand in their day to day lives.

I guess because I had children so I could be around them, I didn't like the idea of paying someone else to do that job

Confused by what you mean by this. Do you mean that you personally wouldn’t have had children if you couldn’t have been around them all day? You wouldn’t have had them if you’d have had to put them into nursery?

I do think though that little ones do not remember the early years,

By that logic we can skip toddler groups, Christmas, birthdays, holidays, travel, activities, swimming, ballet and everything else. All of these things enrich the lives of children. It is completely irrelevant if they remember doing them or not. What is important is they enjoy them at the time.

‘Give me a child until the age of seven and I will show you the man’ - Aristotle.

You are also assuming that all SAHP return to full time work once their children start school. This is not the case. Very often, they return to part time work because they are fully aware that their older children benefit as much from their presence, as they did when they were younger.

Admittedly I have a good balance because I work 3 days a wk & almost TTO but I enjoy my job so never considered not returning.
I don't have a problem with SAHPs although I think it's not ideal that it's often women put into that role because childcare costs are so prohibitive.

I don't think SAHPs are lazy either but I hate the narrative that women who chose to work & enjoy it are somehow less of a parent. My DH would undoubtedly have an easier life if I did everything at home but so would I. He was offered 2 jobs last yr, he took the one that offered more wfh & flexibility.

@SurreyHillsGirl I guess because I had children so I could be around them, I didn't like the idea of paying someone else to do that job and I couldn't afford to do so and I didn't like the idea of 'missing out' while they were babies. I was paid peanuts in the creative arts with no benefits and would have been working for essentially nothing anyway. It was a no brainer. I do feel like I have financial stability and my partner saw it (SAHM) as a very valuable occupation and was extremely happy i made that choice but as soon as they were at school I resumed working because I could and it made more sense. Part of the problem is that's it not valued as a 'job' in our society and it bloddy well should be, (as you so eloquently have inferred with your 'running around after children' remark). I believe it's extremely important and valuable contribution to society. I, personally, wanted to have more of a hand in their day to day lives.
Contrary to popular belief a lot of mothers I know are not just sitting around watching day time TV and flicking a duster about but are educating their kids and providing all sorts of sensory and exciting experiences that you would expect from nursery, if not more.

@Oliversmumsarmy well I'd say SAHM, nothing wrong with that. But saying someone who works isn't a full time parent is ridiculous, and adds to the guilt narrative that stops some women wanting to go back to work.

I also don't think SAHMs are lazy, I do agree with the above poster that it can leave some vulnerable, but as long as they're aware of the risks and make an informed decision then good for them. We all have to make choices, most have positives and negatives, and most of us are just trying to do what we think is best for us and our families. I do think though that little ones do not remember the early years, I went back to work and as i had been back a few years was in a position to negotiate term time and school hours. I know not everyone has that option and it's very privelledged, but I have found being around is of more value than when they were very young, plus the financial stability is more than if I was scrambling for school hour jobs along with everyone else.

You sound like you’re in a financially abusive relationship and it sounds like you are undervalued.

Put your foot down. You deserve respect and you deserve to be equal in this marriage.

Some PEOPLE are lazy, including those that work.

Anyway, lazy isn't a word that comes to mind when someone tells me they are a SAHM, the word vulnerable is far more appropriate. I just don't understand how women can give up their careers and independence to stay at home running around after children. What about when those children become more independent, you somehow have to get 'back out there', usually at a huge disadvantage to those who kept their careers.

I guess if you are someone who doesn't enjoy working then that is a risk you are willing to take.

F/t parent without childcare thdn

Everyone is a full time parent, whether your child is in paid/family childcare or whether you are with them all of the time. So yes, that poster is a full time parent, regardless of how much time they are with them. Their child is, presumably, in childcare for at least a good chunk of that, so they aren't working those hours as well as looking after their child; but you still have the same sort of things to do around work- cooking, cleaning, washing, helping with homework or whatever.

Interesting that nobody has said anything like that about the children of those high earning husbands, who are not even in the same house, as they are working 24/7

But they aren’t saying they work 59hours per week whilst being a f/t parent.

'When you are home you can also do chores/housework/shopping during the day'

Not true! I'm a SAHM of a
1 and 2 yr old and the majority of housework takes place into the night when they finally go to sleep. I can't even unload and load the dishes when they are both around.

You don’t need to clean or do as much housework if you are at work all day and kids are being cared for elsewhere. Having people at home daily makes a bloody awful mess and a constant one. It’s mentally difficult being a SAHM all day with young children and I found it very hard and thankless. Much preferred being at work and having a life but as people’s situations vary dramatically you can’t really make sweeping judgements, however that is the nature of MN!

A friend of mine is a SAHM, the DH is a VP in a big company, managing several hundred people. Of course he's busy, working hard, never sees the children in the evenings as he's always working late, and she could not have a job because of that. Except that the wife recently discovered that many of those 'working so hard, need to close this deal' late evenings were actually drinks with colleagues. Nothing wrong with occasional socialising and yes some socialising is often expected on that level, but was this alway really a case of him being unable to get home, or rather a preference?

Alternatively, I work for a huge multi-billion pound company. I don't think I have ever seen either our CEO or CFO in the office past 6, they both have families so this is where they are.

agree with @Pillowwillo But it is a choice, not a barrier to all women, but that's the message that gets put across.

@pillowwillo I alway find it easier being out of the home so they can't mess it up what suits one doesn't suit all I guess... there is def extra mess when you have toddlers going rogue in the home rather than messing up someone else's or a nursery.
I agree working can be miles harder but this very much depends on what he job is. I've done both also but when I went back after maternity it felt like a little break. I guess as I said it depends on the nature of your job.

@Yesterdayforgotten yes I know, been there, done that. It was still a load easier to be able to do that whilst at home rather than around work hours or after a full day at work.

There are options beyond a nanny for some people it genuinely isn't workable, but for most it would be if they wanted, and if they don't that's not a problem either. But it is a choice, not a barrier to all women, but that's the message that gets put across.

'When you are home you can also do chores/housework/shopping during the day'

This is alot harder with dc/say a baby and toddler to look after and also there is arguely ALOT more mess to clean up from everyone being home rather than out of the home.

It’s all very well talking about “paid childcare,” but find me a nanny / childminder who would have been prepared to get 4 kids off and away / in the car / organised for three different schools everyday. A childminder who could give proper homework support to my dyslexic child. Also, be prepared to get one from his rugby, then fight through Lindon traffic to get the other from singing; or coordinate so and so friend coming over after school, while another needed collecting from ballet. A nanny that liaised properly with teachers about the kids progress day-to-day or who did the research involved in understanding the 11-plus formats for all the different schools in this area and the substantial extra work / support needed to help your kids get entry into the right school for them. One who could remember that one needs to make biscuits for Friday; one needs a packed lunch for Wednesday; another needs a gift for a friend or new hockey socks. Then when one is sick and home from school, inevitably they’ll all get it one after the next, so that can be two weeks out.

It’d all very well if you just have one or two children, I think, but there is no nanny who would have been prepared to all this and much, much more for someone else’s kids. Well, maybe there is, but she would have been very expensive and quite frankly, I’d rather do it myself than have to rely on someone else or deal with another person in the household.

Didn't have to work and didn't have bills to pay it should say. For the first time in years I'm not spending hundreds per week on childcare, it's heaven!