To ask what made you want to be a stay at home parent?

@Char65

I'm not saying a woman is a bad parent or mother because they have to go to work to support their child or children, of course I'm not, that's an economic reality that faces many and if mothers want to continue careers that doesn't make them "bad mothers" either.

I understand you're not saying that personally. Very few people are crass enough to come out and say "working mothers are bad parents". Even on Mumsnet people normally have more empathy than this. And when you point out you're a lone parent the SAHMS all fall over themselves to say "oh but it's not your fault, of course you have to work".

The thing is when you're in my position and there's this constant drip-drip of low level commentary about how optimal it is for mothers not to work it makes you feel isolated, belittled and judged. Obviously that's not your fault or your problem and I realise you haven't deliberately sought to make me feel like this.

But the rhetoric around how optimal it is for a woman to stay at home quite readily tips into "you're selfish if you don't stay at home" and "why would you want to leave your kids" and "why would you outsource your kids" etc. There are people on here who genuinely believe a working mother is a selfish, career oriented person who shouldn't have had children in the first place.

That matters for me at a personal level because it really upsets me to be judged by mothers who have more choice than I do (even though I am happy to work and enjoy working). But it matters more for all women who work because it perpetuates a set of negative assumptions about our motives, our capabilities and our love for our children. And particularly when there's no evidence that any of it is actually true.

How come so few men choose to give up on the jobs they hate for the freeing joys of being a SAHP?

Just because an individual finds something worthwhile or fulfilling doesn't also mean it's not also influenced by societal expectations or stereotypes.

We don't make decisions in a vacuum.

@Thepeopleversuswork This irritates me at a personal level because there's absolutely no choice in it for me and it annoys me to be painted by randoms on the internet as a poor mother because I support my child. But it also worries me at a macro level that people assume that a woman who wants to work has no "maternal" instincts or some such rubbish. It's perfectly possible to both be very maternal and to want to earn your own money and get satisfaction from what you do.

I'm not saying a woman is a bad parent or mother because they have to go to work to support their child or children, of course I'm not, that's an economic reality that faces many and if mothers want to continue careers that doesn't make them "bad mothers" either. Of course those mother's have a maternal instinct and want the best for their children. All I was saying was about choices and to voluntarily give up a job (which you didn't like - as is the case for many MEN as well as women) to look after your children, if you can afford to do it, to me, is a very worthwhile and rewarding thing to do and not sexist or fulfilling some stereotype.

@Char65

As I said in a previous posts I think more mothers (😱) would stay at home and look after the children if finances allowed. I was lucky and feel privileged to have been able to do it that's all. No regrets.😄

This is where the sexism comes in. Your assumptions that a) most mothers have "jobs" while their husbands have "careers". And b) that most women, given the choice, would stay at home to look after children.

For the record I have no problem with people of either sex choosing to stay at home to care for their children if that's what they want and their finances allow for this. But the assumptions you and others make about this being "natural" or "biological" at heart are erroneous and borderline offensive. As PPs have said there's nothing biological about this whatsoever.

I have to work because I'm a lone parent and lone breadwinner so remaining with my children all day is absolutely not an option for me. But I would almost certainly choose to work even if I didn't have to, for numerous reasons but in large part because I love working.

People should choose what works for them. But it does concern me that a lot of posters on here seem to assume that mothers who work do so to observe some sort of contrarian feminist box-ticking exercise and that if they were truly honest with themselves they would give in to the inevitable and stay at home.

This irritates me at a personal level because there's absolutely no choice in it for me and it annoys me to be painted by randoms on the internet as a poor mother because I support my child. But it also worries me at a macro level that people assume that a woman who wants to work has no "maternal" instincts or some such rubbish. It's perfectly possible to both be very maternal and to want to earn your own money and get satisfaction from what you do.

Historically, it was the norm for women to do some work and for childcare to be shared within families. What is now described as the "traditional" set up (breadwinning man, SAH wife) is actually a fairly modern invention and one which was only really dominant as a model for about 30-40 years in the 20th century. It's a historical anomaly. Again, no problem if people want to run their lives like this. But it's upsetting and damaging when those of us who either can't or don't want to run our lives like this are told we are "unnatural" or that we are failing our children.

Because ‘traditional’ arrangements are based on sexist stereotypes. It’s no coincidence that you so happened to have a job rather than a career and your husband happened to have a high paid career, men are more likely to be higher paid again due to social conditioning based on sexism.

It can suit your family and you can be happy with it and find it fulfilling, of course you can but it doesn’t magically mean it isn’t based on sexist stereotypes either.

I was delighted to go to work leaving DC1 with DH when I returned to work and he was on SPL. Not only did I know DC was in very good hands, but it was enormously instructive for him and helped establish the foundation for a decade of genuinely equal parenting.

Oh girl I'm the same some days, it gets better I promise

Because I'd get into debt putting her in nursery

@SouthLondonMum22 why is it but lets not pretend that it has nothing to do with sexist gender stereotypes. to want to be a SAMH? as I think @Jessiepaintyourpicture said I had a job NOT a career (like most men and women who work) and was more than happy to give it up to be a SAMH to our 4 kids. I found that a lot more fulfilling than doing boring admin work in an office. Yes my DH was a high earner and we could afford luxuries and a very good lifestyle on one salary and I accept that we had a 'traditional' arrangement but it suited us and the family just fine. As I said in a previous posts I think more mothers (😱) would stay at home and look after the children if finances allowed. I was lucky and feel privileged to have been able to do it that's all. No regrets.😄

@delphia I agree totally with this. I think it is undeniable that their are very strong bonds between babies and mothers and it is not just in all human societies that I can think of but most of the Animal Kingdom too. That's not to say men should not play a part in raising children or that its 'women's work' its just to say there is biology at play too.

I disagree. I think most mothers spending more time with their child than most fathers is a major factor.

The oxytocin study that shows fathers levels increasing the more time they spend with their child backs that up too.

I don't think you can equate the rarity for women to abandon children to 'societal acceptability.' It's much deeper than that!

I do believe all those things are partly (largely?) biological / instinctive @SouthLondonMum22 . Yes, the more time you spend with your child is relevant, but it's something more fundamental than that, in my view.

Because there are more female nannies
Because some people are automatically suspicious of male childcare providers which again, goes back to sexism rather than biology.

Because it's a female dominated sector - which is due to societal expectations around gender roles.

Because society appears to believe that any man choosing childcare as a career is doing so for nefarious reasons.

But is that biological or is it because women are more likely to spend more time with their babies? In that case, of course they are going to be more attuned to them.

It's more socially acceptable for men to abandon their children, women are always judged more harshly when they do it.

Children tend to stay with their mum after divorce because they are usually the default parent.

You could argue biology or sexist societal norms with all of those examples.

It wasn't the same for your DH, it is the same with my DH. He is just as bonded, caring and attuned to our DS but I'm not the default parent and I don't spend more time with DS than DH, it's equal.

If women aren't more caring than men, why do working mums invariably hire female nannies?

@SouthLondonMum22 I don't think women are more 'caring' necessarily, but I do think women are more naturally 'attuned' to their babies / young children. I'm talking as a general rule (obviously there will be exceptions).

It is easier for MOST men to be separated from babies / young children than MOST women. How many mothers actually abandon children (ie bugger off out of their lives) compared to men? Why do children tend to stay mainly with the mum after a divorce?

My DH is fantastic with our kids, but I know it wasn't the same for him. It just wasn't.

Nobody is saying anything is 'purely due to biology.' Its not and 'either / or' is it? I'm saying sociological and biological factors are highly complex and, in some ways, manifestations of each other. There is no point denying biology. It doesn't need to be a scary word. If women feel differently to men in some ways - then fine. This doesn't make them 'lesser' and they shouldn't have to suppress that.

Actually a couple of people have..... but anyway. Nobody is saying it's a scary word. What we're saying is that these differences are individual rather than indicative of how an entire sex class feels.
Oxytocin is the hormone responsible for bonding and the research shows that men who are actively involved in caring for their newborn display high levels of oxytocin.
However, we know that huge numbers of men don't actively parent their newborn to the same level as mum so it stands to reason that these women have a closer bond. And the reasons men don't do this is down to society/stereotypes/expectations. And so the cycle continues........

Therefore it's far more complicated than women are better caregivers..... and those that opt to go back to work just not being maternal, as you suggested in an earlier post.

Me choosing to go back to work had nothing to do with whether I'm maternal or not. It was all about how we decided we wanted our roles as parents to look like and how we saw our family functioning.
I wouldn't dream of suggesting my way is the only way, it was just the right way for us.

It's also equal which is important to both of us. Neither of us would want to leave the other one to do the majority of parenting, we believe it is best for our son for him to be parented equally by both of us when he isn't at nursery. This means he also has a strong bond with both of us, not just one of us

It can work that way with a SAHP and a WOHP. The difference is it's happening all day not just when DC aren't in nursery.

So the WOHP can do night wakenings, feeds, nappy changing, cooking, playing - all the things that help form a bond with the child.

It's what we did.

Nobody is denying biology either.

But when it comes to caring for a baby, there is no evidence that there's a biological difference which states a mother is more caring and overall a better caregiver than the father which is what a pp was trying to say is biological. It isn't.

Like a pp said, a study showed the opposite. That if fathers are just as involved from the get go their level of oxytocin increases too.

Nobody is saying anything is 'purely due to biology.' Its not and 'either / or' is it? I'm saying sociological and biological factors are highly complex and, in some ways, manifestations of each other. There is no point denying biology. It doesn't need to be a scary word. If women feel differently to men in some ways - then fine. This doesn't make them 'lesser' and they shouldn't have to suppress that.

Whu do you need to insist that biological factors don't exist? Does this make you feel better? Why? Can you speak for billions of women across the planet? Do you need them all to feel the same as you?

I research this for a living 🤷🏼‍♀️

To state that women are choosing to be SAHPs purely due to biology is factually incorrect.

That's doesn't mean I don't think any women should stay at home, I fully understand why some choose to. But you can't explain this behaviour by simply claiming 'it's biology'.

If that's how they feel, that's how they feel. The issue is that they often apply it to others too, it's happened on this thread. It's interesting that you are conveniently choosing to ignore that though. Where's your lecture for those pp's?

If someone feels like that and they can stay at home, they should do it if it makes them feel happy but lets not pretend that it has nothing to do with sexist gender stereotypes.