SAHM’S are you happy? What is your life like?

It’s a shame that these discussions so often end up at people getting at each other. As others have said it’s hard as a working parent to hear SAHP criticising our choices to use childcare as not raising their own children, being only about money, somehow harming children (I know not all posters have been saying that!). You do you. Want to stay home with you kids- do it. But some people can love their kids and WANT to work. I work part time and it’s the best balance. I love the days with my children and I love my job and that I’m showing my daughters in the importance of women having a career and making an impact on the world. My job does far more social good than if I were at home full time with my children. If I was in a different sort of job before I had children I may feel differently. I would never give up my career. I do however think about my children in every decision I make. I work part time, I work flexibly, I work for a company with a generous A/L and parental leave allowance, with good maternity pay and benefits for the family. I spent time choosing a nursery I liked, I organise lots of things for my kids of our days off and I spend quality time with them. You can be a good parent and work. Just as being a SAHP doesn’t automatically make you a good parent.

I don't look down on shams at all, I'd love to have been one but I just could never ever trust any man enough and rightly so both my husbands abandoned me for other women without a minutes notice and if I'd been a sahm I'd have been royally fucked.
As it was I had a house and career of my own and we managed just fun just my DS and I.

[quote Franklyfrost]@PerspicaciousGreen

*Franklyfrost
I don’t earn enough to cover child care. It’s beneficial up until the kids are 3-5 years.

Marriages can break down. If get a 50-50 split of assets it probably won’t be enough to meet all of your needs for the rest of your life. What do you do then? Also, wouldn’t it be more fair for both people in the relationship to work part time rather than one person keep the other (because once the kids are in school it’s all day leisure time).
Try finding a higher level part time job. Me and DH both working part time would struggle to earn as much as one of us working full time.*

That’s true. It’s unfair isn’t it.[/quote]
It really is, and I think it's actually the big gender issue of our time. If you could be a part time lawyer or management consultant or whatever, it wouldn't be an either/or issue when deciding who will take parental leave or be a SAHP or downsize their career to cope with school hours. Because if it's going to be one person who takes time out, it's usually the mother, and for understandable reasons. So her CV has gaps, her career takes a backseat so she's not promoted, even if she does go back to work she's fallen into default parent mode for ill children, etc. If both parents could work part time in their usual roles, I am sure the "elective" gender career disparity would reduce markedly.

I see so many women on forums saying that they'd love to go back to work but just part time. All those qualifications and years of experience those women built up before having children are lost to the labour market because the only choice is working full time, not working at all, or taking a worse role so they can have humane hours.

I think it would do wonders for gender equality and for the nation's mental health if part time professional roles were widely available. I read a wonderful article some time ago about high-powered job shares, but that sort of thing is sadly the exception rather than the rule and they all had to be fought for and bought with years of full time experience behind them.

Maybe there's a Mumsnet HQ campaign in there!

I'm a sahm at the moment but haven't always been. Two kids at primary. I hope to get work again after the summer holidays this year.
It's coincided nicely with homeschooling and while I've had some snidey comments from a few busy bodies, and jealous people, who would also like to not work for a short time, I don't think most people really care.
I feel like I'm always busy, there aren't enough hours in the day.

I suppose the original point that caught my attention is WOHP saying that do as much parenting as a SAHM. Which just isn't true.

Possibly not in most cases -- but it can be. A parent being home doesn't mean they're actually being a proactive parent.

I mean, when discussing these 3-4 year olds - when I was young, it wasn't uncommon for them to be put out with older children. I don't know any parent I grew up with that actively parented all day. We were expected to go entertain ourselves. By 5-6, I was wandering woods, sometimes with my younger sister along. That's rare now, though there are young children pretty much left to their own devices. It depends on the parenting.

My WOH spouse, who used to be the SAHP, works nights so he can be home if there is an emergency all day and be here to talk to our older children before they go to school and gets up around when they get back home before making dinner. He does as much with our school-educated children as I do (and even mine at home can go through a whole day without needing much parenting until dinner time), and he does way more than my mother did. A lot of WOH parents make similar shuffles to be as available to their children as they can -- and some SAH ones aren't actually that available to their children.

But yes, I did less childcare before dd started school. She spent 20 hours per week with her nanny. When she was very small, about half of that time was taken up with nap time. Otherwise, DH and I shared the care between us while we both juggled full time jobs.

Once the kids are in school, the balance shifts a bit. We didn't use any paid childcare at that point, but I probably did a few hours less childcare than I would have done as a SAHP on the days when DH did the pick-ups. I know some WOHPs who work during the school hours and then make up the rest in the evenings when dc are asleep, so they aren't actually doing any less childcare at all.

Parenting has many aspects in my view. It doesn't just boil down to childcare. I have no issue with being told that I did less childcare when dd was small. I do have an issue with the suggestion that I was somehow a lesser parent, because that simply wasn't the case.

@dotdashdashdash I think you raise a valid point. It’s important for us as mothers and as women to put our own mental health first. Whether that means you work 40+ hours a week and use childcare, whether you work PT or whether you become a SAHM- these are all valid choices and ones we make for ourselves.
What is right for one isn’t right for all, and wouldn’t the world be a boring place if we were all the same.
Personally, my MH is much better for being a SAHM. My sisters is better working 40 hours a week. Neither of us are better mums or women. We just do what we want to do. Financially, we were both extremely privileged to be able to chose.

One observation I’ve made recently is that a number of women I know socially who are in the mid to late 50s are all dropping their hours, taking early retirement in order to help their DDs out with their childcare needs.
These DDs all have fairly high flying careers. Lawyers, accountants etc and the amount of support they receive from their parents is significant.

I’m around 10 years younger than these women and was a SAHM for many years and felt quite judged by them on a number of occasions.
Indeed they were fairly vocal about it.
Not that I particularly cared.

I had no support from extended family.
My salary barely covered childcare and I actually really loved being at home with my children.
There is an absolute world of difference between families who enjoy external support and those who have none.
I hope these young women and their partners appreciate how lucky they are because it can be very tough to juggle everything when you rely solely on paid childcare.

The difference on here is that usually people who work say against SAHMs oh I could never do that, I like working or whatever (ie how they feel); whereas the other way round people always bring the welfare of the children into it, as if childcare is cruel (which is judgmental of their parenting). Neither side is covered in glory when it comes to these 'debates' but I find the latter worse personally.

I don’t think this is quite true, there are people on both sides as bad as each other, implying their way is better for both dc and themselves, don’t try to say that SAHM are somehow worse in this debate.

We all do what works best for our family be it through want or necessity.

I'm in Canada rather than the UK, but I've largely been a SAHM since my eldest was born, she is 16. My youngest is four.

I quite like it, I enjoy being with the kids, it allowed my husband to do work that involved a lot of travel, it allowed us to school at home a fair bit which was nice as the schools here are kind of crap, and I like the rhythm of the work more than the rhythm of the typical workplace, as well as the ability to set my own agenda and timetable.

I think a few things made it work. One is that I am a person who doesn't particularly crave some sort of external validation for the value of what I do - in fact I think that a surprising number of well paid jobs with high status are kind of useless or in some cases even socially detrimental. (No, not all, by any means. But enough that I can't see a career as in itself somehow validating.)

I value the family time my being at home creates for all of us - we aren't rushing around in evenings for example.

And also, like the vast majority of SAHMs I know, I actually have done a fair bit of paid work over the years, but it's fit into my other roles. A lot of childcare, mostly for friends or relatives, some tutoring work, occasionally some other PT stuff for a bit. I do a fair bit of volunteer work in the community too, especially when my kids were older, which is something I put a lot of value on being able to do.

do you cease to exist as a person when your children are born?

No, but we become second priority. At least that's how I feel anyway

. I do dispute that it's at all common throughout most of the country.

That's genuinely nice to know

I don't dispute that evidence is very clear that children do best when the main care giver provides the cast majority of care for the first 2 years. But there are lots of things that we do which are "optimal" for children from an evidence based perspective, feeding formula, feeding McDonald's and other processed foods, putting them in their own room before 6 months, doing cry it out, using cot bumpers, putting babies to sleep on their front. I could go on and on and on.

I chose to put my mental health before the optimal care of my children. But the compromise was very very small- have them in full time child care or have them in the care of a mother who could kill herself at any given moment and resented being trapped by motherhood. I personally think paid childcare was the lesser evil.

For parents where parenthood is not what they expected, what should they do? Should I give my kids up for adoption?

I don't want to get into a debate, especially a written one because my nuanced feelings aren't clear though my clumsy way of writing.

I understand that not everyone who uses childcare etc is 50 hours a week or whatever.

I suppose the original point that caught my attention is WOHP saying that do as much parenting as a SAHM. Which just isn't true.

My husband understands this completely (he works full time) so why is it so hard for the WOHPs on this thread to concede that point?

*I'm talking from my experience and what I see first hand at my nursery (very nice nursery in very nice suburb of SW London)

I personally know 5
or 6 3 to 4 year olds that currently do 9/10 hours a day, 4/5 days a week.

I know that the nurseries have a fair amount of staff turn over. So yes, new staff are strangers.

Why can't we say it as we see it?

Childcare may be a necessity for some, but around here it's probably not. It's more for more money, bigger cars and bigger houses and more holidays.*

Look, I'm not doubting that it's like that for some. I'd also concur that it's quite often done by people who don't really need to (work between London and and another city so see quite a range of working patterns and conditions). I do dispute that it's at all common throughout most of the country.

[quote Fizzwizzfozz]@LegoPoliceman oh right thanks for telling me. I hadn't read back but added my post about daytime television by coincidence then saw all this fuck off etc and was like wtf???

I haven't read through but if people are saying things like that then it is out of order.
The reason I have never watched daytime TV is because it is depressing and stultifying and that's why I haven't got fed up in the day not because I'm baking or crafting with my children because a lot of the time I'm not.[/quote]
Sorry @Fizzwizzfozz, I hadn't even seen your post - my rant certainly wasn't directed at you!

Sadly, there is a small minority of SAHMs on this thread who are obviously so incredibly insecure about their choices that they feel the need to shit on WOHPs to make themselves feel better.

how they feel*

Yes, it's kind of always about how they feel, isn't it...

Putting the ideal of super attentive SAHP against what one considers the worst possible version of WOHP isn't going to help anyone. The parent who just chooses to put their child in childcare all their waking hours is just as much a stereotype even if some meet it as the bonbon eating, soap opera watching SAHM (which my mother was very proud of being, she was a stereotype even to the point of actually hating parenting and children).

The whole idea that "no one else" but a parent can "instil values, manners, security, love, bonds and all the other things that are important" is bullshit, and dangerous bullshit at that I think. The whole cultural idea that mother is innately best is a large parcel of why we've a lack of support for SAHM and an incredibly high rate of isolation among parents of young children -- if it's innate, then we don't need to support it, those struggling must have something wrong, SAH can just get by on their children's love and the good feelings of motherhood, right?

My children have always had an at-home parent. I do believe it has benefits, but like everything else it also has risks - both for the parent(s) and the child(ren). Same with having home educated mine through primary and my oldest through his GCSEs (which are currently driving my nuts - I'm feeling some regret there at the moment which will hopefully pass soon). We've had some benefits, but we've also had our home-based lifestyle cause issues even when in the early years discussed we've tried to ensure they had community groups that enabled them to have wider connections and examples.

Oh, and my children make me food regularly - does that mean they're parenting me?

[quote Trolleywool]@owlpicture what's your problem? Why are you so keen so try and explain why it's so terrible? Insecure are we? Bless.[/quote]
No, I'm not. Can't understand why some are vehemently defending their choice without conceding that there is a compromise - as with everything

Owlpicture- some of us aren’t saying it as you see it as in our homes and nurseries things are different.

[quote Fizzwizzfozz]@paralysedbyinertia what on earth is this very angry post of yours about?[/quote]
The incredibly stupid, goady posts from @beachsidecafe.

I'm not at all worried about my own parenting choices. My dd is nearing adulthood now, and I know that I've done a good job because I couldn't be any prouder of the person that she had become. However, I also know that many working mothers (never fathers!) do struggle with guilt and anxiety because of outdated prejudices and the kind of smug nonsense being pushed by a number of posters on this thread. I don't think this kind of rubbish should be allowed to stand.

I have every respect for SAHMs and their right to make the choices that work for their own families. I'm sure that many of them are great parents, as was my own brilliant, lovely SAH mum. However, I do have an issue with people trying to seek validation for their own choices by denigrating the choices made by others. Contrary to what some on this thread might like to believe, SAHPs are not better parents than WOHPs and they are not producing better citizens, they are just managing their lives in a slightly different way. For the record, WOHPs are not better parents either. We're all just doing what works best for our families. Some parents in both groups will be brilliant. Some parents in both groups will be shit. And many parents in both groups will be somewhere in between.

@owlpicture what's your problem? Why are you so keen so try and explain why it's so terrible? Insecure are we? Bless.

As always with a sahm thread it's turned into a Woh Vs sah argument, with either side throwing insults. Different people make different choices and that's ok as what works for one family may not work for another.

I'm a sahm and this site can be boarding on bullying to us, however, the sahm on here telling working mums they aren't really parenting - that's uncalled for and not true.

As a sahm I hate the phrase 'im a full time mum.' All mums are full time, it's just different people are providing for their families in different ways