Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Govt stealth policy to eradicate SAH parenting

309 replies

JRHartley72 · 22/03/2023 06:59

The Guardian is reporting this morning that buried deep in Jeremy Hunt's budget last week is a new policy which will force parents on UC to return to work when their children turn three. As charities and campaigners say, it's like they just don't want us to raise our own children any more!

www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/22/jeremy-hunt-universal-credit-benefits-mothers-30-hour-weeks

OP posts:
MrsMcisaCt · 24/03/2023 17:16

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 24/03/2023 07:33

If there was real, credible evidence that children do better with a parent at home, then I would be the first to argue that the state should do more to encourage this. However, the evidence does not support it.

And again, if there was real, credible evidence that there was a net benefit to society from having more SAHMs, then I would be in favour of policies that enabled women to make the choice to SAH. However, there is no real evidence of any net benefit to society.

SAH is a lifestyle choice that primarily benefits the SAHP (if that's what they want to do) and their partner (if they want that division of labour). It is an entirely valid choice to make if the family can afford it, and there may well be benefits for that particular family - eg less stress for both parents etc. However, this is a choice that needs to be funded by the individual family and not by the state.

What the evidence does show is the importance of under 2s in particular being able to form secure attachments with a small number of consistent caregivers. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that we need more SAHPs. It might mean that we need better funding for maternity leave, now flexible working arrangements so that parents can share care between them, and more investment in high quality childcare etc.

Show quote history

When I was a SAHP it did not 'primarily benefit' me. I don't need evidence to prove to you or anyone else that it benefited my child. It's the most natural relationship in the world - a parent caring for their own baby. Honestly, there's some nonsense on this thread. Use your common sense. Unless a parent is abusive, of course the best place for a very young child / baby is with it's parent.

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 24/03/2023 17:27

MrsMcisaCt · 24/03/2023 17:16

When I was a SAHP it did not 'primarily benefit' me. I don't need evidence to prove to you or anyone else that it benefited my child. It's the most natural relationship in the world - a parent caring for their own baby. Honestly, there's some nonsense on this thread. Use your common sense. Unless a parent is abusive, of course the best place for a very young child / baby is with it's parent.

Show quote history

Of course you don't need to prove anything to me. How you live your life is entirely your call. However, if people want the state to fund them to SAH, as some are advocating, then your opinion that it is "best" won't really wash - proper evidence will be required, and the bulk of evidence that we have to date simply doesn't back you up.

bigbabycooker · 26/03/2023 12:55

@MrsMcisaCt

The countries that consistently do better for child mental health are the scandi countries, in which lots of women work, but often part time, and lots of men take a more active role in raising their kids. What evidence there is for "SAHM" = better for all is pretty patchy.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

Benefits
Botw1 · 26/03/2023 12:59

@MrsMcisaCt

You completely ignored the point of @MrsBennetsPoorNerves post

Kokeshi123 · 27/03/2023 01:09

MrsMcisaCt · 24/03/2023 17:16

When I was a SAHP it did not 'primarily benefit' me. I don't need evidence to prove to you or anyone else that it benefited my child. It's the most natural relationship in the world - a parent caring for their own baby. Honestly, there's some nonsense on this thread. Use your common sense. Unless a parent is abusive, of course the best place for a very young child / baby is with it's parent.

Show quote history

I've been in some very traditional societies (including some where most children were not in schooling), and it was pretty different to a modern day SAHM setup. Mothers did look after babies (but then, most people here are in support of parental leave for actual babies, as opposed to older kids). They pretty much ignored their kids once they were past the very-young-toddler phase - basically as soon as they got pregnant with the next one. Kids past the early toddler phase mostly looked after each other, with older kids expected to mind younger siblings, cousins and other relatives. Finally, women were never isolated with their children, whereas most modern SAHMs spend the greater part of the day without contact with other adults.

Modern daycare is unnatural, if you like, but so is modern-style SAHMing.

verabarbleen · 27/03/2023 20:23

I thought this was already the case?

Boomboom22 · 27/03/2023 20:27

Good point made above, nursery and childcare is pr9bably more like historical childhood than sahm is!

Botw1 · 27/03/2023 20:47

@Kokeshi123

Exactly

The idea that children need their mother entirely devoted to them and nothing else is entirely a modern, sexist, notion, cooked up by spock and Co to fight haxk against women's lib

It has no basis in history, nature or research

Lucylock · 28/03/2023 07:21

Surely by the time the child is 3, people can work. No one has the right to be a SAH parent..it's a lifestyle choice that shouldn't be paid for by the tax payer.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread