I don't understand how people can give up their career and be a stay at home parent ?

[lolstevelol]

You risk losing career progression, especially as jobs change so rapidly due to technology. The role you were doing a few years ago might look completely different today. Securing a stable office job is much harder now than it used to be.

You also miss out on pension contributions, which is a significant factor. Losing 5–10 years of contributions and compounding can be the difference between retiring at 58 and having to work until or beyond the state pension age.

Generally speaking, supporting a family on a single income while working can be more stressful than being a stay-at-home parent. Even when the job itself is manageable, workplace environments can be toxic, which can create tension and resentment between the working parent and the stay-at-home parent.

Cos they’ve got loads of money and loads of savings and don’t give a fig about progression perhaps?

Work to live not live to work (for me). Some people are just content with family and so called simple pleasures, some people want power/ wealth/ recognition. Goals and success look different for different people. Being constrained by a cycle of constantly striving for the next step up an artificial ladder sounds horrendous to me, but for others there's a thrill in that.

Blimey, the wilful avoiding of the OP’s point on here is incredible.

This isn’t about “you doing you,” nor about whether it was enriching looking after your small children, or whether you think an office job is fun or fulfilling.

The OP is clearly thinking about long term financial security - your individual pension, your ability to weather one parent losing his or her job and needing to look for another one in a really tough market, or worst case your ability to recover financially from divorce or widowhood.

Absolutely fine to say “I just can’t be thinking about that, too much on right now,” or “my husband/wife earns a packet and has already set aside money for me just in case our marriage doesn’t last so we’ve thought everything through,” but had waving it away like it’s a stupid question looks like people are sticking their heads in the sand. It’s important to think through your financial position!

@BendoftheBeginning
The OP makes some good points but could certainly have chosen her title to be less provocative.
’I don’t understand why anyone would be a SAHP’ is always going to raise hackles. People often have very good reasons for making that choice and it’s not necessary to do too much thinking to understand that.

@BendoftheBeginningI haven’t avoided the OP’s point at all. We were just able to scrape by and manage with me staying home when we had our daughter, and if we hadn’t have been in that position, then I wouldn’t have had a child. I was 35 when I had her, which at that time, was considered old for a first baby, and we had waited until then because we couldn’t have afforded for me to give up work any sooner. I never gave my pension a second thought during the time I was off - I had paid into my workplace pension for almost 20 years by the time I stopped working, so would have received a modest pension if I’d never gone back to work, as well as my state pension. If my husband had lost his job, then we could easily have reversed our roles and he could have stayed at home whilst I went back to work; Ive amways worked in area where it’s fairly easy to find work. It was very very difficult to manage financially during the time I was at home, but we decided forgoing exotic holidays, new cars, clothes, meals out etc and being penniless was worth it to enable me to be at home with our daughter for her early childhood.

I agree, and I disagreed with OP on page 1. But OP isn't the only one sowing division here, it's extremists on both sides. Live and let live, I say.

@Jane143
To be able to raise your child yourself I’d say is the best ambition to have.
I truly believe this and was lucky enough to be a SAHM for many years.
As another poster commented…magical times and I would definitely go back there in a heartbeat.

Good, I’m glad you laid your thinking out! The OP clearly doesn’t think that some people are happier to be poorer than he or she is, and will cut their cloth accordingly. It’s worth pointing that out.

It was the wall of defensive and derisive comments I was referring to, and they far, far outnumbered thoughtful responses. There seem to be a lot of people with their hands clapped over their ears on this topic - which doesn’t mean ALL families who’ve decided to be supported by a single earner are being thoughtless about the long term, but it looks like quite a few are.

Women often get it in the neck both ways. If we’re “modern” we’re seen as unnatural and rejecting femaleness, if we’re “traditional” we’re seen as proving that women don’t need equal rights after all. Just look at how in the US they’re trying to take the vote from women who changed their names on marrying - talk about sticking the knife into traditional choices!

You know the biggest cause of misery and just about every societal problem we can think of isn’t caused by working parents but by poverty.

You did something which worked for you but I doubt I’m the only one who is a bit uncomfortable with the ‘if you can’t stay home you shouldn’t have a child’ attitude that seeks to be inferred in the above post.

Thinking about it, there seems to be an attitude permeating by some that if you aren’t prepared to be miserable - to live in poverty and not to have the things that actually make life bearable - you shouldn’t have children at all, which is a weird sort of attitude you sometimes see on the weight loss threads, that if you aren’t suffering and deprived you haven’t earned the joys of a slim body.

I find toddlers tricky and life with them is made infinitely more bearable by toddler groups, soft play and visits out and about. But apparently this makes me a terrible parent and I should sit at home without anything nice at all.

As soon as I had my kids zi realised how much more important time spent with them was than time spent commuting & working. I couldn't afford to be a SAHM but did change to a much more flexible Wfh job

There's a big difference between being in real poverty and being very hard up. We had no spare money for seven years, but we were still able to pay the bills, eat healthily, and provide for our daughter. If having a child would have caused us to live in poverty, we would have remained childless. I don't give a toss how other people choose to live and am not passing judgement on other people, but for us, we felt strongly that one of us should be at home if we had children and I didn't want to miss out on any of my daughter's early life.

What do you think the difference is, out of interest?

What is the difference between living in poverty and being hard up?

Surely poverty is lacking the income to meet your basic needs such as food, housing, clothing etc, and to enable you to participate in society? When I was a stay at home mother and wasn't working, I felt we were very hard up compared to how we had lived for the previous 17 years, but we were not living in poverty - we could still pay the mortgage, heat the house, eat healthily, run an old car, and clothe our daughter. We couldn't afford things that really aren't necessary, such as expensive holidays, eating out regularly, takeaways, daily coffees, or buying new cars and clothes, and it was a major issue if the washing machine broke down, for example. But it was always possible to find enjoyable things to do at home and outside the home which didn't cost a lot of money, and when we went out for the day, we took a packed lunch and thermos flasks rather than spending money in cafes etc. and went to feed the ducks with friends rather than paying for expensive soft play sessions. They were among the best years that I can remember and made me realise that whilst it's lovely to have loads of money, providing you can meet your essential outgoings, it's really not necessary, and you can enjoy yourself every bit as much spending very little.

It's great that worked for you, but it doesn't work for anyone. It wouldn't have worked for my family. We would have been unable to afford those basics.

And you are essentially saying that if you can't afford for a parent to stay at home, you shouldn't have children. Which is nonsense.

"Hard up" is relative.

We moved to a cheaper house. We stopped going abroad.

Friends live very different lifestyles as they have lots of disposable income and we don't.

We have to be careful- they don't.

We are hard up but not in poverty.

@pointythings I haven't said that at all. If you had bothered to read my previous post, I said that I don't give a toss what other people do and don't judge them for their choices. What I have said is that we would have chosen not to have children if it hadn't been possible for one of us to have stayed at home with him/her.

No one is forcing you to give up their career but what others do is not your business.
I gave up work for 8 years when I had my children and then I went part time,because I wanted to be there for them in their developing years. I didn't want to pay someone else to look after my children when I wanted to do it. .
I went back to work full time when my youngest was in year 8.
I haven't regretted it for a minute. I was still young enough to have a successful career when I went back to work.
That was my decision I don't question anyone who made a different decision and I wouldn't expect anyone to judge me for the decision I made.

In my case I did it to spend time with my children. They’re only young once. I was at home until my youngest went to secondary school then I went back part time around school hours. It was a joint decision my husband and I made and he would have supported me whatever I chose. I do think though that if both parents have careers something eventually suffers be it the children, the relationship or both. Having said that everyone has got to do what’s right for their particular circumstances.

Could have written this word for word, including the friendship group etc, miss is so much, how old are your dc now?

37 and 38! But I'm reliving those days through my little granddaughters now 😊

I agree that should not be said.
But much derogatory comment also happens to a SAHP. They are seen as wasting their time, failing to prioritise the careers for which they have trained, risking their pensions, laying themselves open to poverty for their child if their relationship breaks down, condemning themselves to mind numbing drudgery etc.
People need to make their own choices without judgement; and the state needs to play fair with either choice in how parents are supported. At present financial help in the form of paid nursery hours is biased towards encouraging women in particular back into the workforce rather than asking how SAHPs might be supported.

I think that’s sensible, because if both parents are in the workforce then they’re both contributing in employment taxation.

They’re also supporting others in the workforce to do similar - as those nurseries need staff.

If we paid SAHPs to stay at home, say a similar amount as funded nursery hours, that’s a direct take, for what is really optional unemployment.

It feels obvious to me that if you’re otherwise able to work, but have chosen to stay at home based on your own preferences, that shouldn’t be state funded beyond the unemployment benefits that are already available for those who need them.

Personally I’m happier paying for people to be in work, than paying for them to choose to be out of it.

Aww wow, lovely 🥰

I think you will find that SAHPs are working very hard. If they were not we would regard nursery workers as not really working.
SAHPs are choosing to sacrifice income for what they regard as the best start for their children.
I understand your position, but implicit in every word is the common assumption that those in paid employment are making a contribution to society and SAHPs are not. This attitude has crept up insidiously and should be challenged.