To believe this about working/staying at home?

[WriterofDreams]

If you feel this is too contentious an issue and don't want to get involved, don't.

I see endless posts about how working/staying at home affects kids but the way I've always looked at it is how it affects the parents. As far as I'm concerned as long as a child is well looked after, fed, clothed, played with a reasonable amount, given appropriate discipline, stimulation and sleep they're doing well and there's not much to worry about. However, for the parents seeing their children growing up, watching them achieve and grow, is a once in a lifetime opportunity. When thinking about staying at home or working mums in particular seem to focus either on their career or on their children, they don't seem to consider themselves and their own personal needs.

I see having children as a life experience, not just something on the sidelines of everything else. I see it as something I've embarked on both for myself and my child. I've chosen not to go back to work because I want to see my child grow up. It might benefit him to be with me, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it'll benefit me, and that's what I want. I enjoy being with him, I love seeing him learn and I don't want to go to work every day and miss out on things. I could have a bigger house, more stuff and more holidays if I worked but I don't want those. The way I see it the earnings I'm "losing" are paying for my once in a lifetime experience, which isn't climbing Mount Everest, or travelling the world, it's seeing a new life grow and change, seeing a new person make his way in the world. I feel privileged that I am the person who gets to teach this little boy, who gets to be with him when he has his very first swim, his very first ice cream, sees a dog for the first time. These years that I have with him will never, ever come back, I can literally never repeat them, ever. They are about the most precious thing in my life and I would pay anything for them. Later, when he's older, he will become more independent and I will have had my time with him. He'll go to school and those close years will be over and then I'll see about my career, which I can have any time in my life.

Childhood is short. I choose to share it with my son because I want those memories, for myself. I hope it'll be a good experience for him too. I don't think it'll make him a better person in any way, he won't be more advanced or more social or more anything, he'll just be him. But I'll be able to see that boy emerge, day by day. That's why I'm a SAHM.

I always end up reading a thread like this on a day when I've had to hand DS over in tears to the CM, or it's a beautiful day and I'm wishing I could take him to the park on his bike. Stupid me for clicking on it I suppose.

Ok if I didn't work we probably would scrape by, just. And when DS is all grown up I can go out and get myself a nice minimum wage job for some 'pin money' until I can afford to retire at 65+.

It took me 15 years to get to the point I have in my 'career'. It's nothing special, and not wonderfully well paid but it's as good as I'm ever going to get. And if I leave now it's gone for good.

Thanks for reminding me what I'm missing with my son though

Hi Penguin. We are JUST the people you speak of! We had DS1 in our late 20s and both worked full time. Gradually DH cut his hours down and I did for a period of time. I was back to full time when DS2 arrived 10 years later and after mat. leave I went part time. He's now 2 and it's working well. I'm 40 now. We are bringing in (alot) less than we were 10 years ago, but we are more financially secure.
I am where I want to be in my career, for the moment at least.

The only downside at the moment is that in order to get a larger house (2 bed house, 4 people) we either need to move to a cheaper area but within commuting distance for me (the main bread winner) or change jobs in the cheaper area, or for me to go back full time and start on the mortgage again.

There are always pros and cons, but generally I'd say were we more content...you know, working to live (in jobs we both enjoy I hasten to add) not living to work.

The problem with part-time work is that (in my RL experience) you don't really get a proper career out of it.

DH and I both do the same kind of work. After the DCs I went part-time and love it (great balance, stimulating job, still lots of school gate action, around most of the time for DCs blah blah) but a lot of the opportunities that would have been open to me if I worked full-time are definitely no longer there. DH's career is however going strong and he will be able to climb the ladder that I no longer can. If we were both part-time that wouldn't be possible.

I was happy to compromise; he wouldn't have wanted to - and financially we are much better off if he doesn't either. As most say, horses for courses.

Agree that you can't have a career 'anytime in life' just like that. It's not the way the world works. I work two days a week and I know I'm losing my edge.
Also hard to fit a job around school.
If it's so important to be a sahm why does picking them up from school or being there in the holidays become less important suddenly? Because they've grown a year? I find that bit hard to grasp.

No stillstanding sorry if that wasn't clear - 2 financially contributing parents isn't necesary for an equal partnership at all, one is fine if that's right for that family - just wondered why niceday felt it had to be an equal amount if 2 parents contributing if you see what I mean.

Agree stillstanding. I'm still undecided on my happiness in compromising myself!

WriterofDreams, beautiful and well written OP
So glad I am not the only one who feels like that. The time with my DTs is precious and I can never get it back. I really do cherish every moment, even the naughty ones

Niceday - it must be pleasant indeed to float through life in a little bubble of certainty that your way is the only way and what is most important to you is most important to others.

No milestone in my son's life is "most important". Every day of his life his equally important and I would imagine that I will still be enjoying all those moments when he is 30 and I am retiring. To hear you talk you would think that children get to the age of about 6 when all the basics are in place and you think "oh well, there we go. All the precious moments are over".

No. Those of us who work outside the home don't fail to notice our childrens' milestones - we just have a sense of perspective and don't go around ringing our hands and wailing "Oh nooooooo. I missed the exact moment when the third tooth broke through the skin - my life is ruined and my relationship with my child is irretrievably broken beyond all repair".

Actually, I think you were clear InFlames - I was just getting riled up

Really hate this concept (which is coming out thick and strong on this thread) that a woman is setting a bad example if she stays at home and that somehow your contribution is only valuable if it is a monetary one (or earn the same amount of money for that matter).

Just re-read an completely see where you got that idea from - but to I just meant in that scenario, where both parents work, then I see the 2 contributing anything as equal, not that it had to be same amount.

Not v clear apologies - am knackered!

I've managed to miss all of dd's teeth so far - dh has always spotted them at the weekends.

op, I'm glad you made the right choices for you and your ds

its true that they don't need you as much as they get older, my ds's can go off on their own now and aren't sticking to me 24/7 and boy, am i enjoying it

but i, like you, spent most of their day to day early years with them and am so glad i did, as you say i don't know if it made a huge difference to them (though i like to think it did), but it was worth it for me

each to their own and all that

InFlames
My point re finances is that when people say they go to work so as to "not live off their partner", become a "keep woman", etc are not appreciation all the work that is done at home, simply because it is not paid. And if the incomes are very different the cost of housework and childcare the family will have to buy may leave the family worse off. It may be a sensible move in many circumstances, but not for financial considerations.

Re precious moments: firstly, when you work, you cannot see the children as much as when you are with them. Not in this universe. And secondly, I was just having a laugh at the preciousness.

And I agree that histoically and now unpaid parenting role such as SAHM's is MASSIVELY undervalued, economically and socially - just because it wasn't what I chose to do doesn't mean I don't see that :-)

"and then I'll see about my career, which I can have any time in my life"

hahahahaha. Yes, because obviously you can just walk straight back into a well paid and interesting job after several years of being a SAHM .

Many women stay working, and choose to miss (a small amount of) spending time with their children, because they are more far-sighted than this and they recognise that their career will not simply be waiting for them once their time as a SAHM is at an end.

OP, a cruise around the "Going back to work" board might enlighten you.

The Daily Wail calculated sham's wage as £37k recently.
My mum is quite open about deciding to have children young because she couldn't bare her succession of boring jobs anymore.

[contemplates the possibility that niceday was being sarcastic]

[can't be sure as views like that are not uncommon on threads like this]

I did wonder niceday but wasn't sure because of the general tone of your post... Certainly don't miss the poos when I'm at work :-)

Kungfupannda
After six (I guess), it will be the first time they swear at you, first time have a beer, etc. Mine is under 6, so can't be precise

And I thought it would be clear, sorry, I do not really treasure poos and vomits

I don't have a "career". I do however have a bank loan to pay off (no mortgage, but a loan that fnded the building of our kitchen extension which allowed us to use what was the dining room as our baby's bedroom). Unitl our loan is paid off, I have to work, even though I feel despertaely sad about spending hardly any time with my baby. My partner's salary isn't enough to keep us all in food, pay all the bills and meet all the loan repayments without any input from an additonal salary. If we didn't have the loan to pay off we could just manage it on his income alone, but as it is, there's no choice. I have asked at work for a reduction in hours (a 4 day week based on 80% salary) which we can manage on, but I haven't heard anything yet to confirm whether I have got this, so I have to continue to work full time, whilst my 10 month old baby spends 10 hours a day, 5 days a week, being looked after by someone else (refusing to nap at the CM's during the week, then sleeping through most of the weekend), and I miss her terribly.

[unclenches]

Sorry, Niceday. But in my defence, it was a stunningly accurate imitation of the many "precious moments" posts that abound in the never-ending WOHM debate. I was sucked in!

Over the 14 years of being a mum I have worked full time, part time and been a sahm, a single parent, in a relationship, varying between 1-4 dc.

I have always done what suited our circumstances at the time.

Sometimes I love being at home with them. Sometimes I hate it.

Sometimes when I worked I loved it. Sometimes I hated it.

Right now I'm feeling fortunate to be a sahm to a child I never thought I would have, definitely my last so I want to be with him. And I also hated my job so will happily put my hands up to giving up work for that reason.

I think most people try to do what is right for their family based upon their circumstances at the time.

I'm not really sure about the op. It seems a very romanticised version of sah parenting to me. Yes being there and seeing 1st things is fab, being your own boss in a sense is great too but a lot of it is boring and repetitive (which is what mn was invented for) The op almost seems like she's trying to justify her status as a sahm, when really I don't think anyone really cares what other people do as long as they don't profess that one is superior to the other.

Pats brain fondly and returns it to the shelf so I can do laps around the house with my very much wanting to walk baby and develop a crouched old lady back

WoD - I feel the same way as you. I love being with DS most of the time but I do need the occasional break, provided by MIL for half a day most weeks. BUt I had him when I was 40 and had been working since I was 15 - part time initially of course - so it was no great loss to me to give it up for a while. Actually, I didn't give up work until I left the UK so have only been a complete SAHM for almost 2y now. I still do stuff though - have edited a text book and contributed to another book in those 2y, and am doing some work for my old boss in the UK now as well. But I don't miss working every day, that's for sure - I'd far rather look after DS.

I wonder if it is age-related - I can see that if I had had a child in my twenties I might have been more keen to get back to work quicker; but now I'm old and tired in my 40s I'm happier to sit around all day be at home.

Depends on your circumstances. Youve found your ideal. Well done. Everyone is different though.

I would argue that if you have both parents and they are able to sort part time work its the best solution for the family as everyone gets a bit of time together. This is only my opinion.

Mine are in childcare 3 days a week, dh works a 9 day fortnight. This works for us and weve taken the financial hit. I get time with my children and see all those lovely wee moments you mention but by going to work I get a break. I get to carry on with the career I love. I get to have a great laugh with my colleagues. I even get to have a cup of tea in relative peace. Oh, and I get paid.

Each to their own

LOL kungfu well said. All this guff about precious moments is just that, guff.