To think SAHM with young DC deserve more respect

@RabbitsEatPancakes

you don’t need to do cooking in the day though. A simple sandwich and something fruit or something is ok for lunch

But that's an unanswerable question. You will never know what is better as there are so many variables. I don't think this relates to whether you respect a role or not just because you think it might not be the optimum way of doing something.

What is better, a nursery or a childminder? Again, completely unanswerable. If though I suggested that I don't respect the role of a childminder because I think a nursery can look after more children more efficient and do it better then that would plainly be an absurd thing to suggest. Why do SAHMs have to be the definitive best option before they get the respect that is afforded to everyone else?

Your post offers an answer to my question but not the answer. You will see lots of posts on here that contradict your view and lots that agree. That's what I mean about it being subjective and so many variables being involved.

You found it easier to manage the children's whole day. Lots of people (including me) find it easier when the kids have been worn out and been given dinner already. Part of the difficulty of the role of a SAHP is indeed the boredom. It's not a unique feature of that role as I have found boredom the hardest part of lots of jobs I've had.

I also disagree that children's preferences don't feed into decision making around being a SAHP. Of course the main factors will be finances and personal preferences but I have known quite a few women either flex their jobs a lot, change careers or become SAHPs because of their children not coping well in childcare. It isn't uncommon at all so I'm surprised you think it's unusual

In some cases you may be right.

One of the reasons I decided to be a SAHM was to take the stress and pressure off my DH, who needed to focus on his career to progress upwards. Someone in higher management or a position that needs their full attention can't keep taking days off to pick up ill kids from nursery/school, or leave work early for school runs, kids pervformances, school holidays. His earning potential was far higher, so we prioritised the higher income.

In an ideal world, women would be able to take leave flexibility for pregnancy, post natal period, childcare, caring for multiple young children... without it affecting our careers or earning potential. But I don't see this happening.

To answer your question, it was much easier looking after my children in the evening after having them all day. Because I was able to structure their day and routine to make it so. I also had the benefit of down time in the day when they napped, or we were at soft play or on a play date or visiting grandparents.

They also had a good dad who would come in and say "you've had them all day" and take over for an hour or so.

Don't get me wrong, if it comes to preferred job, it would be my paid job every time. In fact my DH and I actually swapped for a while and he was a SAHD (which is another story, which served only to cement my dislike of the SAH model) but that's to do with finding SAH boring rather than hard. Which I guess is a type of hard.

I agree that different children respond better to different types of care. Unfortunately that isn't what dictates what they get though, is it? Other than where the child has specific needs, I've not read of any SAHMs who say they made the decision based on the child's personality and preferred type of care. They decide either because its practical or their own preference. So it follows that just as you may get children in nursery who'd prefer to be at home, you will get children kept at home who may thrive better in nursery. In reality children adapt to parental choice.

Nobody is disputing the fact that looking after the children is vitally important. We are disputing the assumption that the children will be better looked after if they have a SAHP.

Presumably they employ a full time nanny then, or have lots of family to help raise their children?

We tried having both of us working when we just had one child, that was sustainable for a while. But for DH to climb higher, in a very competitive field, we needed someone always available to care for children and home. We even tried a nanny/housekeeper for a year, but this caused more issues for us. The obvious solutuon for us was for me to become a SAHM, rather than keep using childcare. He needs to be free to focus on work, which involves travelling overseas and working unpredictable hours.

There really isn't much childcare provision, unless you use breakfast clubs, after school clubs, nurseries and can balance it all, to enable both parents to stay employed. How do people manage the school holidays? What if your DC don't thrive in childcare settings and holiday clubs? Obviously it's great if they do, but many children are happier when they have more time with a parent.

I think the value of having a SAHP is under-appreciated by some, maybe under valued in general by entire societies. Very sad that so many SAHMs feel unappreciated or not respected by society.

To me, being able to say I'm a SAHM feels very 'respectable'. I always wanted to take on this role and do it well. Raising and nurturing a family, being able to focus on this exclusively instead of juggling work at the same time, is a privilege to me. We worked and planned for it. I don't care too much if others look down on me for choosing this path. And I don't look down on others for their paths, every family situation is so different nowadays.

It fulfils a necessary societal function. Raising children to become secure productive adults is hugely important. By your logic no one deserve accolades for any career they choose because they chose that career.

But lots of jobs aren't done simultaneously with caring for small children. Most people use childcare during working hours. So the question is would you find it easier working and looking after children before/after the working day or being at home all day with the kids? I imagine people's answers to this would vary depending on the job and children in question.

I would literally rather do almost any other job than look after a baby with colic all day. I have never had a baby with the condition myself but the limited experience with it frightened me. If it was looking after a compliant and easy kid for the day then I would prefer to do this over most jobs.

Also insisting that it's just the quality of the parenting that counts is just an opinion and will depend hugely on the child. We accept this with all other facets of life. It's horses for courses. Some kids will benefit hugely from having more time with parents, more time at home and might struggle to settle in childcare settings, others thrive in childcare more than they would if they were at home. I think most parents know their children and their individual tolerances. We generally accept this in adults, that some people are just home birds that like a slower pace of life and others are extroverts that love the buzz of being out and company. Kids are just as varied.

I fundamentally disagree with you. Looking after children is vitally important to the children themselves, the family unit and wider society. The early years can shape someone's entire life. It is far more important than loads of jobs like cleaning cars selling vapes or cold calling people to buy insurance etc. I don't look down on anyone doing these kinds of jobs, I don't do societally important work either, but I'm not stupid enough to delude myself that my work must be more important because I'm paid for it. I earn far more than a carer or nursery nurse but I certainly don't think that means that this means my role is more important to society as it simply isn't.
Nor do I think it's necessarily harder to do my role than be a SAHP. Nobody sits there measuring the difficulty of every role and assigning it a score but I can guarantee there is a huge variance of job difficulty in this country and being a SAHP wouldn't be at the bottom of this scale.

I think your post is really interesting but what about this thought - raising healthy, well-behaved, educated or skilled children who will be an asset to society when grown up IS one of the best things SAHP, usually mums, CAN do for society.

If we actually saw raising the next generation as a worthwhile job, instead of just letting them grow up next to us, then SAHPs would be considered very high status.

Your argument suggests that contributing to the economy now whilst being a working parent is better than doing your best to ensure your children will contribute in the future as well.

(I will add it's not that simple - everyone is different- that may not be the motivation for SAHPs and the high-achieving kids I see come from families with both SAHPS and working parents. )

Your post is disrespectful and ignorant
Far less chores if you and your toddlers are out of the house all day. No cooking or cleaning or tidying.

Massive difference in workload. I found office work far easier than being at home with my own children when small.

Also there's this attitude that SAHM at happy or able to do the bare minimum and relex- anyone can keep a kid alive type comments. "All you have to do is bung them some quavers and put a wash on".

We had our kids in 2003, 2005 and 2007 and I was a SAHM and honestly, it was more normal than not. Totally unremarkable. Never felt judged or devalued - it literally never occurred to me. Where else would the kids be? Most women in the area were also SAH mums - many had nannies or other after school support as well. Everybody had a cleaner, nobody was doing housework. They were doing stuff with the kids. If anything, I was judged for not having a nanny or someone to stay home with the younger ones while I took the elder one to a club or whatever. Even men (eg DH's of friends) thought it was weird that had no 'help' with 3 DC. They used to ask me how I coped. Being there for your kids was the general 'norm' then. Nobody once asked anyone when they were going back to work. Certsinly, I don't know anyone who used a full-time nursery eg. 8-5. The whole 'SAHM value' issue that gets pedalled on MN was a non-issue back then. Either something has drastically shifted in society, or MN is not representative. I don't know.

I didn't say looking after children wasn't important. I'm saying it's not necessary or better for child or society for a mother to do nothing else. You can do an excellent job of raising children alongside working in a vape shop, and an appalling job of it while being unemployed. It's the quality of the parenting that's important not the constant presence of a mother. I agree there are jobs out there that are easier than looking after small children, if all you have to do is the job. But the comparison is not children with job, it's children with children + job.

Hmm well that's a very privileged lifestyle. Had my youngest in 03. Knew very few SAHM and if they had then they wouldn't have had money to pay for cleaners and nannies

My DC was one of those kids in full time nursery at that stage. And seeing as the nursery was full he certainly wasn't alone in that.

I love it when someone starts a thread to get some validation and compliments, then gets increasingly belligerent in their replies as people tell them to get over themselves. They're my favourite type.

We had our kids in 2003, 2005 and 2007 and I was a SAHM and honestly, it was more normal than not. Totally unremarkable. Never felt judged or devalued - it literally never occurred to me. Where else would the kids be? Most women in the area were also SAH mums - many had nannies or other after school support as well. Everybody had a cleaner, nobody was doing housework. They were doing stuff with the kids. If anything, I was judged for not having a nanny or someone to stay home with the younger ones while I took the elder one to a club or whatever. Even men (eg DH's of friends) thought it was weird that had no 'help' with 3 DC. They used to ask me how I coped. Being there for your kids was the general 'norm' then. Nobody once asked anyone when they were going back to work. Certsinly, I don't know anyone who used a full-time nursery eg. 8-5. The whole 'SAHM value' issue that gets pedalled on MN was a non-issue back then. Either something has drastically shifted in society, or MN is not representative. I don't know.

Can keeping a pet dog can really compare to raising a family? Even as an 'extreme' version. Dogs sort of fit in with a person's lifestyle and career (or get re-homed if they don't suit the owners or family). Raising children is a life long commitment.

Dogs aren't raised. Lots of options are available, including leaving dog home alone all day, or paying a dog walker, or taking dog to work (many offices are dog-friendly now!)

Several PPs have referred to being a SAHP as job but it really isn’t. It’s a lifestyle choice for most. Most importantly, the choice works for you and your family.
You have chosen to have a child and between you and your partner/co-parent you have responsibilities to that child. There is much joy and drudgery in raising a child.
It’s a more extreme version of having a pet dog. There are those that are paid to dogsit and dog walk - that’s their job. The owner’s job is not raising the dog, it’s their lifestyle choice to bring a dog into their home, for which they are now responsible.

I certainly don’t think that WOHP have two jobs - the one that makes money and the other that burns through it.

I fundamentally disagree with you. Looking after children is vitally important to the children themselves, the family unit and wider society. The early years can shape someone's entire life. It is far more important than loads of jobs like cleaning cars selling vapes or cold calling people to buy insurance etc. I don't look down on anyone doing these kinds of jobs, I don't do societally important work either, but I'm not stupid enough to delude myself that my work must be more important because I'm paid for it. I earn far more than a carer or nursery nurse but I certainly don't think that means that this means my role is more important to society as it simply isn't.
Nor do I think it's necessarily harder to do my role than be a SAHP. Nobody sits there measuring the difficulty of every role and assigning it a score but I can guarantee there is a huge variance of job difficulty in this country and being a SAHP wouldn't be at the bottom of this scale.