SAHM

Yes I still would, but Id do something more like a hobby, or go self employed, or go to college and do a creative writing degree, which is what Id like to do when they have left home. I was really frustrated and bored at home with the children. They were happy in nursery, they were far more stimulated than they would have been watching me doing the hoovering and I was happy doing a job that I loved. And I have enough work experience now that I can still work part time without it having affected my pension too much, and I can be around for GCSE/ homework etc now they are teens. Unless you can afford to be a SAHM forever (which is not what many people can afford to do) kids still need you when they are older. Its better to work part time for longer than not work at all for 5+ years and then have to start again.

I had the option of being a SAHP but opted to go back to work. It just wasn't for me at all, I didn't like being at home all the time, it had a negative impact on my mh. I love my dd (who's now a teen), and we have a wonderful relationship, but it just wasn't my 'thing'. I'm due to retire in about 8 years time and I can't wait, it's just all about timings and what's right at that particular time in your life

You tell yourself that.

And I'll be sure to mention it to the SAHM in my daughter's class who is called into school every week for her child kicking, biting, punching and spitting whilst my child sits nicely and cracks on with her work.

No personal experience with using a nursery then? Some nurseries are very poor but then again, some parents are which also includes some SAHP's.

But some nurseries are excellent, as are many of the nursery workers. As you've pointed out, they certainly aren't doing it for the money.

I chose to stay home before they started school. The standard of nursery care is overall very poor. You cannot expect someone on minimum wage to care for your child like a mother/father/grandparent etc would. Obviously excluding all the psycho relatives you would never leave your kid with.

Late to this thread but I work and I like it. I had so much pressure put on me by me ex to give up work - he refused to pay for nursery, clothes/petrol for work etc - I lived on my CC - but I am glad he did, because when it ended I could buy a house for us all!

If I won the lottery I would give up my current job, I love it but it's stressful, and (imagining I won millions) I would set up a charity to support the kids I work with now to access higher education and still work.

Like others have said - work is a major part of my identity but it also feeds me - intellectually and emotionally, I get so much out of the young people I work with - it's amazing, challenging, tiring and sad at times but so worth it.

Kids never stop needing you - mine are 22.19 and 15 - I have had to dash down to Bristol at shot notice to help one, up to Manchester to help another, spend time discussing a CDL assessment and bullying issues for the third in the past month - but that is possible while still existing out side of the home.

I have no issue with people being SAMP's but it would never have worked for me

Interesting. I have adhd too, and a very low boredom threshold! Work is definitely better for me.

No I don't think I would, given the choice. Not because I wouldn't want to have that time with my kids, but I wouldn't want to be dependent on another adult for finances.

I am now in that position (after working full time for 20 years). My baby was born very poorly and has a severe lung condition, we've been advised no nursery for a couple of years while her lungs get stronger. I have taken a two year career break and will return to my job at the end of that period.

I love being at home with her, I really do love it. My job is great but having a child to take care of who we thought would never leave hospital is the greatest gift I have been given. I am also skint now, but I don't care.

Yes I expect so as we're very rural.

Of course they know! Unless they exist in some sort of vacuum.

Exactly.

What’s the alternative (insert MN head tilt) Like childcare is such an unusual concept.

Interesting. All grown adults need to take on household responsibilities too. When you are a SAHM, unless a trust fund baby, your partner will be bringing in the money, therefore you are also a housewife - that is the part of it I don't like.

My DH cleans the house and is great at it. He carries as much mental and administrative load as me but we play to our strengths. If I had to clean, tidy, do laundry, cook for a man my whole life with my 2 DDs in tow, I would consider myself a bad role model to them personally. In addition, I NEVER sought out a man for his money. I dated the six figure earners and the trust fund babies and I felt I would be settling if I chose them.

On the lottery comment, I would stop being an employee and sink my teeth into something else - A business, investments, a PhD?

I will always have to work. I have adhd and find work far better for me as a person than having time completely managed by me at home. When I'm busy in a structured environment I'm so much happier and calmer than if I'm not, so I think I'm an exception where genuinely if I had a choice to be a sahm and even had an endless supply of money I'd still have to work. Some of my previous jobs were not mentally stimulating enough so I'd probably not do those but my current career is so fulfilling for my needs, even hard days make me feel like I'm thriving in ways being a mum never could tbh.

Could be area dependent to be fair. Nobody I know could manage on only one income. But I refuse to believe that people on this thread don't know that childcare exists and that's how parents go to work.

yep i would pack in work in a heart beat.

There are a few at my daughters' school.

I saw one at pick up today and I asked what she'd been up to. She said "the cleaner was round so I met a friend for brunch and then got my nails done". So let's not pretend everyone is doing it for the child's benefit.

It isn’t bullying at all.

if it is then the same can be said for pp’s comment when she implies that working mums have chosen work over their school aged children.

What’s the alternative? Really?

Childcare is the very, very standard alternative.

Because that person did not say it was a CHOICE, they said a parent needs to leave work at 9 and 3 to do school pickups, WHICH IS FALSE. That is what we are contradicting.

The alternative is using childcare, which is what most people do. I know absolutely nobody who was a SAHP with school age children.

It isn't about shaming SAHPs in the slightest. It's about countering the suggestion - sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit - that people have to choose between prioritising the needs of their children and having a career, because of the false presumption that it isn't possible to do both.

If some people want to be SAHPs, and it works for them and their families, I am happy for them. They don't need to justify their choices by implying that their kids would somehow be worse off if they went to work.

I was the one who called a statement "silly" and I stand by that. It was silly.

To be clear, I have not said that anyone is"silly" to be a SAHP, or indeed for organising their lives in any way they see fit. I don't care really care what others choose to do with their time.

But it is silly to say that children who are in school all day have "the same needs" as babies and preschoolers. Anyone with any common sense will know that this makes no sense at all.

Calling people silly and telling them to stop being ridiculous is exactly the covert bullying and superiority I’m referring to

It's much easier not working because if you work you have to do both. However, not working doesn't suit a lot of people. Most would say part-time is the ideal.

Cripes. Sounds like you have a bee in your bonnet about this?

In my case and most I know, a parent definitely needs to be available to do drop offs and pick-ups? What’s the alternative? It’s certainly the norm, no? So not sure what you mean there…

Don’t be ridiculous. The pp responded to my comment saying that a parent ‘has to’ be able to drop their child off at school and also pick them up.

pp later clarified that it was actually her choice which is fine but isn’t at all the same as saying that a parent ‘has to’ do it.

No one ever said that needs stop when a child starts school either. Just that the needs change, pp argued that the needs are the same.

it isn’t semantics if someone is actually saying it. If that isn’t what pp means then don’t say it.