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.

@Mischance I agree. I don't think I've ever worked harder than when I was a stay at home mother, or had a more responsible role in life, although it was by far the most enjoyable and rewarding period of my life. It wasn't that long ago that mothers who went out to work were the ones who were disapproved of - how times have changed.

I think it's disingenuous to compare working hard at being a SAHM and working hard at a paid job.

I've already said that being a SAHM relieved me of being responsible to a boss, to targets, to all the stresses of any job, and when you recognise that many people have contracts that they're responsible for and high expectations of them within a company, being a SAHM really is not comparable.

As I said in my earlier post, I had a fantastic social life (as did my kids) when I was a SAHM until they started school. We were out almost every day, or having mum friends visit us with their little ones. In all honesty I can't call that 'working hard' and it bore no comparison with my working life when I returned and was constantly working, monitored, and under pressure from my managers.

Neither working mums nor SAHMs should have to justify their choices/the situation that's forced upon them. And frankly, when they try to, it ends up with exaggerated claims like yours, and those made by some working mums on here.

So just own your choices, people, and stop trying to make out that one is worthier or harder than the other.

I only felt the need to reiterate that parenting is work because another post implied otherwise.
Current values are skewed towards financial goals being highly valued and other goals devalued.
I would defend anyone's right to make their own choices, but not to imply that money is more important than nurturing, which comes across so often.

I think posters with children well into their thirties and possibly with grandchildren of their own comparing those at home with children now are probably naive in the extreme. It’s a totally different world.

I was born in 1980 and vaguely remember walking into our little town centre with my mum and it took forever because she would talk to so many people!

I did the NCT course with my first (ds.) Out of six of us, only one other is also part time and we don’t have the same days off. So although I do go to groups with DD, it’s a couple of hours a day so I do spend most of my week with a two year old. I love her and I love a lot of things about our life together but that is or can be a challenge.

I also hate the way some posters make out that a woman working is just for trivial luxuries like clothes and cars. We have a home we couldn’t afford without me working, even on two days a week. Yes, we could move, but then that would mean other compromises, not least schools that aren’t as good.

Money and wanting it isn’t about greed and capitalism and pursuit of cars and holidays. It buys you experiences, security and things. The first two are often forgotten about by those who vigorously defend their time at home - it’s all about those who go back to work wanting exotic holidays and cars - but actually two salaries have meant we’ve been able to pay for private consultations for our DS’s hearing issues, possibly private education at secondary level (they are still little) and other things that are luxuries in a way as in they are available at little or no cost elsewhere but money means we can access them straightaway and at a high level.

Money does indeed buy these opportunities. But it is also fine to forego these for what an individual might see as an equal (or greater in their eyes) good..... that of being there for your children when they are small and having less stressed parents.
Both are equally valid positions to hold and should be respected.

I don't understand how some women farm out their children to nurseries so they can go to work.

Ignorant and judgemental? No more so than your post.

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.

You may find this but a lot of people feel the opposite way. My husband could not do his job if I was not at home and he is, and should be, grateful that I am willing to do it.

@saraclara and some people have nicer jobs than that, and some people struggle with the total lack of recognition and companionship and reduced intellectual stimulation that comes with sahparenthood. Especially if you have years of bad sleepers. Some people miss their careers. So just own your choices, people, and stop trying to make out that one is worthier or harder than the other. But that's exactly what you're doing, saying that SAHparenting does not compare to work at a job? You're just wrong.

On a thread that started with SAHMs being attacked, as they constantly are on Mnet. Okay.

Hahaha most of those dads can't wait to go back to work. The SAHMs work also supports the family, certainly at preschool age and maybe after depending on the children's needs. But sure, poor men.

I don’t much care what other people do. But I do think not having a child at all if you can’t be at home with them is a very extreme position and one that is dogmatic and makes little sense. I can’t respect that.

I have not said that and indeed do not think that.

It's interesting that when I say the best start in life you think I mean financially

I’m sure they are, but they’re not working in paid employment.

For me, that would be similar to suggesting that I clean my house, so should be paid for that as a cleaner would be.

We’re not talking value in terms of societal or domestic value, we’re talking financial value.

There is no direct taxation value of a SAHP, by choice - so the state funding that any further than if UC would be applicable just doesn’t make financial sense to me.

Many of those who have commented here have said that they left careers, high paid positions, hold various qualifications. If we’re talking only in financial terms, there is more benefit to them contributing to the economy in employment tax.

That’s not a judgment of their value within their home or family, it’s just common sense.

there is more benefit to them contributing to the economy in employment tax.
Benefit to whom?

No, I’m aware you don’t think financial security is important.

When did I say that ?

Just possibly in a fourteen page thread I meant someone else.

You didn’t. It was a needlessly unpleasant response.

Hahaha most of those dads can't wait to go back to work.

But nobody tells them they should not have had kids in the first place.

It's about balance really.
Someone taking 5 years out of their career (whether mum or dad) will still likely work for at minimum 35 to 40 years, so society will still gain from their taxes etc.
And it might be that there are gains for the children.. I believe there are .. not just from the presence of a parent during those critical years but for there being a bit of slack in the family system so not everyone is meeting themselves coming back, stressed and exhausted.

If you read the thread, you will see that I disagreed with OP on page 2. And then a lot of very defensive SAHMs came out and attacked working women in the usual way, and it all descended into the usual bunfight. I repeat: Live and let live.

In the specific scenario I know about, both parents worked full time.

No judgement from me for however people navigate what is an awful scenario to be faced with.

I’m just pointing out that it doesn’t have to mean the end of either parent’s career.

It depends on the specifics I’d imagine.

We have a disabled, complex needs child and both still manage to work FT.

We work different times so one of us is always available for before and after school, I flexi work so I can claim some hours back over the holidays, and we receive some holiday club respite that makes it that bit more manageable. We’re also both lucky to have employers that are flexible to the various appointments etc we have.

I think we’re likely the anomaly, however. I don’t come across many other SENd parents with both working. From the parents I know from school, I can only think of a couple of others.

I’m sure many patents want to stay home with the kids, but someone has got to pay the bills.

How is that possible if both parents opt to contribute to family life in ways other than financial?

Perhaps doing the best for the kids is for both parents to equally share the burden of financially providing for the family?

I assume you’re aiming this question at mothers, not fathers.

One could also ask, why do people bother having children when they have no intention of financially providing for them?

I’m not seeing why it’s relevant to your point to be honest, in that case. Would you have felt differently if she had been in a paid role?

My mother was a great role model to me because she was very accomplished and had a fulfilling career with an element of power & influence which brought her financial independence and autonomy. She taught me to aim high & that I could have these things too if I wanted them.