to think we will never reach an agreement re:SAHM/WOHM?

[DingDongMerrilyOutOfSeason]

Totally disregarding the fact that fathers rarely face this pressure, is there any argument that can get us all to agree on what is for the best? I think probably not as even I cannot make up my own mind! I have been reading so many threads recently pushing both sides and cannot help but think that we are all a bit right and a bit wrong. I would go so far as to say I totally disagree that a SAHM is always the ideal, eg is a SAHM who never plays with, talks to or interacts with her child as useful as a CM who does all the above? Esp if the CM has a long-standing relationship with the child and cares about them and their development? OTOH, is it any use giving a child a strong female role model who works in an important profession if quality childcare is not in place and child grows up feeling second best? (I realise these are extremes of the spectrum, just arguing what I have seen raised as points recently)

Surely if a child is cared for by someone who is interested in their wellbeing and social and emotional development, it does not really matter if it is a parent/GP/other family member/CM/Nursery worker/etc. Also, for people who think SAHM is always the ideal, is there a hierachy of appropriate care, eg mum, then dad, then a GP, then nanny and so on?

I can argue both sides but so frequently find myself angry with people arguing one side or another, even though I can find good points for both SAHM and WOHM. AIBU to think we will never agree? and that you are all now going to start shouting at me

Oh dear ... Getting into the 'my life's harder than yours ' shite now?

Tbh most people I meet in real life DO agree on this topic- basically whatever works for you and your family. I know SAHMs, full time WOHMs and part time WOHMs. Everyone's circumstances are so different you can't compare- some can't afford to work, some can't afford not to work, some work at a loss for the sake of their future career, some have family help, some don't... the list of variables is endless.

The only places I've seen people being judgey about this are in the media and on here!

YANBU. An agreement will never be reached because each and every circumstance is different.

The world has changed and things have moved on. It has become necessary for a large proportion of families to have 2 salaries coming in, so all the bills can be met. The economic climate also means that not everyone feels comfortable with one earner in the household, even if that were possible.

Yes, the early years are extremely precious and no, I don't think that childcare outside the home is the best thing for under 3's (although if it is of good quality then I don't think it's harmful). However, compromises have to be made and the job market is not set up for people to jump in and out of their careers (unfortunately).

If you can afford to be a SAHM and want to be, then marvellous. If not, don't beat yourself up about it. Doing the best YOU can in your personal circumstances is what counts.

Why do we have to reach an agreement? Surely every family has to decide what is best for them?

I am a SAHM. My friend is a WOHM. She says she couldn't do what I do as it is so hard and would drive her nuts. I couldn't do what she does i.e getting 2 kids ready, dressed, fed off to school and nursery then a long day at work, then come home, cook tea and bath and bedtime (for them, not her).

Both sets of kids are lovely, well adjusted, loved and secure. I personally prefer being a SAHM and she personally prefers being a WOHM. I don't think it's made any difference to our children and mothers are actually allowed to have choices.

We don't need agreement on this, or any issue, because people have different opinions about what is best, and what is best for one person won't be best for another.

That is fine. Nothing wrong with people doing things differently. Nothing wrong with people talking about it. Not even anything wrong with people having strong opinions.

The problem in this particular debate lies with the small handful of people who have very strong, one-size-fits-all views and are either so completely desperate to prove themselves that they have to tell others they are wrong in order to vindicate their own choices, or are so spiteful that they choose to use these views as a weapon against those who are not particularly secure in their choices.

The vast majority of people on both "sides" of the situation are perfectly able to accept that their own personal views are not some sort of divine edict and that everyone makes the best possible choice based on their own situation. Even those who have very strong views that there is only one right way of doing things generally manage to either button their lips or express those views in a balanced way. It is a small minority who get all shouty-shouty about people damaging their children and they generally do it to get a reaction - the emotive accusation of "dumping your kids on strangers" goes about as close to the heart of parenting as it is possible to get, and the people who come out with this crap know it and have chosen their words for maximum impact.

Unfortunately it is this small minority who sniff out every hint of this issue arising and pounce on any relevant thread with glee. The MN WOHM/SAHM debates are therefore hardly representational of the general live-and-let-live attitude of the vast majority.

We all have such short memories - or no imagination. It seems to me that everyone is inclined to argue in favour of whatever they are doing at the moment. It also seems to me that pretty much everyone does both at some point - I know I have. I was a SAHM, I worked part-time, I worked full-time. So why can't we just accept that we are all trying to do the best we can, in our own circumstances, at any given point in our children's lives? So if you are currently a WOHM I'm guessing you stayed at home for a little while after your kids were born. And if you are a SAHM I'm guessing that at some point in the future you will be looking for some sort of work.

I think Hassled hit the nail on the head when she said what we really need to do is look at why women feel guilty for the choices they are making. When I was at home, I felt guilty that my career wasn't progressing and I wasn't contributing to the finances. When I worked part-time, I felt guilty that my dc weren't being looked after by me, and also that I was missing important happenings at work. When I worked full-time, I felt guilty that my kids were being looked after by someone else (even though by this stage they were at school full-time and only needed an hour or so after school).

Good post wicket. We will all probably do a bit of everything at some point. I am a SAHM now but will be a WOHM when DS1 starts school. Most of us were SAHMs when our babies were brand new. IMO neither is wrong.

Why are we all beating ourselves and each other up?

I don't feel guilty at all for doing what's right for my family. I do object to being told I was a 'heartless' mother for going back part time when DS was 17 weeks and full time when he was 21 weeks. I object to being told I don't work as hard as SAHM's. I object to being told I am 'dumping him' on other people - he's with DH while I work and me when DH works. I object to having a HV write that my choice to return to work was a 'social issue' interns of BF- I still BF until 29 weeks.

Same way SAHM's object to being told they're not contributing to the economy or are lazy or whatever.

The arguments are emotive for both choices - but I have found in RL and on here that there is less vitriol and less 'hitting at the heart of mothering' towards SAHM's than working mums.

Well it is a matter of perspective Inflames because as SAHM I would say the opposite is true. The vitriol poured on SAHM has been terrible on some of the threads I have been on and the way research is currently swinging, we can't even argue that it is best for the children.

But that is all it is really - the current fashion in research is to look at the damage done to children on working parents. They don't find any and it is used as a stick to beat the SAHMs with. I bet if they looked at whether being a SAHM parent was good for children and wanted to justify it with new research they would find something positive to say.

It doesn't matter really - I am mindful of something my FIL says, that 95% of children grow up to be decent adults so most of us get it right. It is an off the cuff statistic, not grounded in any real research but the essence of what he is says is true. Most children grow up OK so why worry how your neighbour/friend/stranger on MN are raising their children? They will be just fine so long as you love them and do what you think is best for them.

no you are right, there will never be agreement

i will never in a million years understand why people have babies to shove them in the hands of a stranger for 10+ hours a day as soon as possible

never in a million years.

YANBU and I look forward to a post that says IABU and we can reconcile this debate.

what SoupDragon said. Just leave me alone and stop trying to make me feel like shit and I am fine.

I don't really see why we have to reach an agreement. I have been both, enjoyed both and have felt guilty about neither, they suited my situations at the time.

I don't care what people do, as long as they're doing it for the right reasons for them. I.e. I have an acquaintance who works full time in a high-flying position because she intends to send her child to public school, and feels she is doing the best for her future (there's a lot of emphasis on academia in her family).

Not the way I go about things at all - I'm more the SAHM type (although working PT until I go on maternity again, after which I will be a SAHM). But I don't judge her and expect her not to judge me. In our family academia is not the be all and end all.

Neither of us is right or wrong, just different.

I don't understand why anyone on here (or in RL) have to agree on either WOHM or SAHM

Are some people so self conscious that they actually give a shit if someone else doesn't like the choice they have made for their family and themselves WRT to WOHM or SAHM?

I couldn't care less either way TBH, I also couldn't care less what other people think of my choice, because my choice is exactly that mine. Discussed with DH to decide what was best for our family in our circumstances!

I think we should accept that being a mother to young children is just hard work.

Being a SAHM is clearly hard work, but so is getting everyone out of the house in the morning, doing a shift at work and then coming home from the school run to the breakfast dishes.

Personally I can't imagine being a SAHM is harder work than being a WOHM (unless the WOHM has a full household staff or SAHM has a child with SN) but then again I've never done it so maybe there's something I'm missing.

SAHMs who haven't been WOHMs equally won't appreciate that experience, so it's a pointless argument we'll never agree on.

Wot SoupDragon said

I'm going to copy and paste it all over contentious threads on MN

I work PT by the way, so I sit in between the two, I work during school hours so I'm at home with my dd as much as any SAHM would be, but while she's at school I'm at work.