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.

I used to get asked that too and it became tedious. I did give up a well paid job as an insurance underwriter but to me time spent raising my children was more important. I loved being at home with them and I genuinely think they benefited from this.

That is sad. Mine never did that though.

I think the important words are "high quality".I'm not sure that all childcare settings could be.described as that.

Nursery workers are usually low paid and childcare is a very under valued occupation.

The reality is that many people have no option but to use childcare but it isn't always going to be better for the child.

I do think women are condemned whatever they do and in an ideal world it would be up to each family to decide if one parent (although realistically it is usually the mother) stays at home.

However we dont live in an ideal world.

My great granny left my granny and her brothers with her mother as she had to work to support them so the issue is nothing new.

After the first decade, I thought they would give up, but it still continues, 25 years on.

Ive got one family member who keeps saying I could go to uni now, even part time! Well no, even If I wanted to, which I don’t, I couldn’t just go to uni. I got a d in maths gcse, I’d have to retake that (I’d fail without intense tutoring as I hate it, was always terrible at it and only got that d as I cheated and I have no interest in it), then I’d have to do an access course, then get onto a part time uni course. I’m 46, so I’d be what, 54/56 when I’d done all that? My son is 23 and all his friends who graduated uni, even the ones who left last year with masters are struggling to find work and are being turned down from KFC. But yeah, they will most definitely hire a women in her mid 50s for a graduate position.

They are handwringing about my pension too now, but actually, there’s a higher chance of the illness that almost finished me off 3 years ago returning and killing me than there is of me even living to retirement age, so it’s not something I can muster a shit over.

It’s always women who have a problem with my life, never men.

those studies I mentioned did actually look at child emotional wellbeing and attachment. Found that any differences were small and highly dependent on context, especially parental wellbeing and care quality. Also found children in childcare are just as securely attached to parents as those at home, no evidence that children have poorer relationships with working mothers.

Why do you care what other people do 🙄

I did go back to work part time when my youngest started secondary school working around school hours. I still got asked why I didn’t go back full time! I do wonder if part of it is jealousy.
Given your personal circumstances I’d not be looking to go to work either.

I’m not someone who has a career. I have a low paid full time secrarial job that pays my bills. That’s literally all it’s for. I’d happily quit at any point if I could, I don’t even need the baby. I’d happily leave and never work again, but alas.

Really? Funny you didn't mention those aspects. Anyway, https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/parenting-matters/202410/daycare-yes-or-no-an-opinion-piece/amp

It's perfectly logical that parents with strong and healthy attachments to their children will prioritise them during the time they are together, even if both work full time. There are rubbish uncaring working parents, and there are also rubbish uncaring stay at home parents because that's what happens with people.

There is no standard parent. Some are awful and the case for nursery care being better is very clear.
Some are wonderful and want to be at home with their child but cannot.
It's a whole range.

What I would like to see is more real choice for parents rather than the way that the government gives help nudging them towards going back to work when child and parent might be better for a stay at home choice.
All government help is value loaded and manipulates behaviour. I feel it is skewed at present. The crux of the matter is that higher value is placed on incentives to return to work over care at home.

We can of course find arguments to support any opinions we choose to hold.

I posted recent, large UK studies and meta-analysis.

The above linked is an opinion piece by a woman in the US talking about an article that references a study in Canada. The study in Canada, I looked it up, was about a specific new very cheap child care program in one province in the late 90s.

The program in question was an interesting experiment and it indeed significantly increased the number of very young children in full time care - but many sources note that the scheme was scaled up too rapidly and there were significant problems with childcare quality. Which, as the UK studies also agree, makes a difference.

However, the study mentioned did not conclude this childcare program was universally detrimental,but said it didn't meet the expectations that early universal childcare is good for cognitive development and "may even have had negative impacts on children from low-income families."

Of course ideally people should not be forced to use childcare if they believe it's not good for the children, but I don't see evidence it's necessarily damaging.

Research is hard to validate because there are too many variables: quality of the nursery care, size of the facility, quality of the staff, quality of the parents, home circumstances - so much to juggle.

Choice is what matters and, as I have said, I think the government in UK needs to stop weighting the system in favour of those who wish to return to work and against those who wish to be at home with their children.

However they have higher qualifications and standards required of nursery workers. This is crucial. Plus, some countries give parents 1.5 years off overall (via shared parental leave) to stay at home. Personally I think for toddlers nursery can be very beneficial, depending on their personality to some extent. Not full time though. For tiny babies, just not ever going to be good for them really, unless parental care is suboptimal — even 9 months when many UK mums have to return to work is way too young. It scares me when they are pre verbal.

*You’re not coming from a place of judgement…why on earth would you with your views be judgemental of the mums doing the best for their children

Because some people absolutely love spending time with their kids, not putting them in nursery 5 days a week.
It's wonderful to be able to spend fun times with them, doing lovely things every day. That would not happen if both parents worked full time.
Kids are little for such a short time, make the most of it if you are able.
There's more to life than working.

Because some people absolutely love spending time with their kids, not putting them in nursery 5 days a week.
And here we go... Parents who put their kids in childcare because they need to work love them less.

It's wonderful to be able to spend fun times with them, doing lovely things every day. That would not happen if both parents worked full time.
Really? Because despite both of us working full time, we somehow managed to have homecooked family dinners every day, do bathtime every day, read them bedtime stories every day. So clearly it does happen. Or are you saying that those things aren't 'lovely'?

There's more to life than working.
True. That's why we have these amazing things called 'weekends' and 'annual leave'.

Your entire post is a distillate of all the awful cliches that judgemental SAHMs throw at working mums.

Sadly, she’s right though…

Is she? So you genuinely believe that working mums love their kids less, could SAH if they really, really wanted to, and that their kids all have poorer outcomes? I'd like some really, really good links to the research that says that all of this is indubitably and 100% true.

Thankfully @pointythings is right and not guilty of lazy blinkered thinking.

*Securing a stable office job…”

why does it have to be that? Office jobs are some people’s absolute nightmare!

Whether or not you work, and the amount you choose to do, is not a reflection of the love you have for your child.

I dont understand why a mother would want to have a full time job and pay for someone else to bring up your children. If a career is so important, dont have kids.

Why does it only apply to mothers?

Your lack of understanding here is what is usually described as 'a you problem'.

It is remedied by learning and accepting that not everyone feels and lives the same way you do.