To think if you SAH and your DP works and earns X, you do not therefore earn X yourself

[catgirl1976]

I do not want to start a SAH / WAH bunfight and this is inspired by another thread but......

A thread recently was asking people if they earnt over £40k and I was surprised to see a number of posters saying they were SAHM / SAHD but their partner earnt XX, so therefore they did too.

Now, I am not commenting on the value of the work a stay at home partner does - the value is huge and it is a tough, worthwhile thing to do.

But you do not earn. (Even if you should etc etc).

I work. My DH stays at home. If I heard DH saying "oh catgirl earns xxx so I earn xxx too" I would be really peed off and think - "no, no dude - you don't."

We don't have separate money - what's mine is his and vice versa, and I am happy with our arrangement. It is hos money as much as mine, but I earn it. He didn't spend 20 hours negotiating a deal or whatever - that was me.

It has never even occured to me before, but I was just surprised that people felt if DP earned an amount, they earned it too and would actually say, well yes I earn over £40k as DH is a GP or whatever.

It almost felt like some people were saying they were somehow personally doing better than others because they had "married better" which seemed really

AIBU?

It's all about prioritising, secret - where there's a will, there's a way.:)

Though I listen to my dd read less often now, as she prefers to read to herself. I do still read to her every evening though, and find that there is always sufficient time.

Bright, interested, self-motivated children don't need hours and hours of daily coaching - just a bit of time with an interested parent each day can work wonders, as can time to learn an explore under their own steam, without excessive adult interference.

I think as soon as you get into the murky world of whether it's better for a child to have a WOHM/SAHM parent it all goes tits up. There's just no answer to that and any argument is going to piss off one side or the other. There are good and bad parents, and whether they WOHM or SAHM is totally unrelated to that. A good parent will do their child good no matter what.

See cailin, I find it really refreshing when people say that they stay at home because they want to - fair enough & good for you.

Callindana- respect to you! I think you are the first person I have ever seen post that on MN- that the decision to be a SAHP is about what you want, and won't necessarily achieve different, or better, or worse outcomes for Your child.

As I said, if two parents can afford to live on one income, and choose to have one parent earning and one not, then that's fine , no problem. It's when it descends into this smug, judgemental thing that somehow it is going to result in superior outcomes for the child, that it gets on people nerves

I work. I worked part time while my kids were pre school, then full time. I would never have the arrogance to assume tha t me working has been 'better' for my kids. Ok, they went to a fabulous nursery (which they still talk about) but no doubt They would have done equally well at home

The benefits of working are for ME. I enjoy the interest and variety of my work. I enjoy the social life. And of course the salary and pension. Those are the only claims I make for it. To try to claim it is 'better' for my kids wo uld be as bizarre as trying to claim that not working Is 'better'

DD doesn't NEED hours but I often find 1 2 or 3 book(s) isn't enough! Her teacher has said the same. When they were assessing her the other day she finished and asked if she could read another one and the teacher told me she was very sorry she had to say no because she had all the other children to do. She does read to herself sometimes but it's handy to be there if there's a word they don't know/just to discuss it.
Of course she and everyone would survive if I had to/wanted to get a job but I don't!

But surely if she reads that well, she should be happy enough to read to herself?

Having a sahp doesn't lead to superior outcomes for a child but having a good adult/child ratio in the early years statistically does. Preferably 1:1 be that a grandparent, nanny or whoever.
As you have pointed out that would only be the case in most sahp households if they is only 1 child.
Has anyone said sahp = better outcomes for kids? I don't think there are any studies that show that. As you have said it is common knowledge that a good adult/child ration is better hence 1:1 care being the most expensive if you're not lucky enough to have a family member to do it for free.

Honey she is happy to read to herself but she can't yet read every word in the English language. Also I think there is still value in discussing/sharing the story even once a child can read independently.

People don't tend to say outright that they think sahp is better, but some posters make smug comments which imply it secretmince.

Anyway, glad we're all agreed about the ratios!

Btw- I am sure my children would survive if I gave up work- but I don't have to so I don't! I am sure they would also survive if dh gave up work- but he doesn't have to so he doesn't!

If you don't want to get a job, that's fair enough - no need. If you are happy doing what you are doing, and it works for your family, then it isn't anyone else's business. But suggesting that your dd would "survive" if you got a job implies that you think she would be much worse off if you did.

Forgive me, but that sounds like the sort of smug, superior attitude that callmemrs has mentioned.

Of course they would but you are doing what is best for your family just like everyone else.

I do think you are very quick to read implied criticism into others comments whilst making some pretty judgemental ones yourself though.

I think there tends be smugness on both sides of the debate. It's bound to happen, but there's no point in getting in a twist about it. You're happy with how things are and whether anyone else has a problem with it isn't relevant. It's horrible to hear someone imply that you're not doing right by your children, but you know it just isn't true.

The thread has kind of veered off topic but it seems that everyone agrees that claiming someone else's salary is not accurate. Though I still haven't seen a post when someone did. It would be barmy. I suppose if you thought that you would have to say that the full time working parent does all the childcare too. They're a team right. What's his is hers and so on including contributions.

Claiming you earn someone else's salary.

In my situation I DO think my kids would be worse off if I didn't stay at home with them - which is why I have chosen to stay at home.
Equally families were both parents go out to work do that because it is best in their circumstances (either they need the money/it would be difficult to return to their career after a break/would be driven stir crazy at home etc).
I don't see how it is smug to think you are doing the best for your family - doesn't everyone?

nfk, molehill admitted she did say it on another thread, but didn't mean it.

Educationally speaking, the very worst outcomes are in houses where nobody works.

Ok. Rather dismayed to find I have posted on some comment that wasn't meant. Such is MN.

Yes.work is a good socioeconomic and health indicator homes were no adult works tend to do badlyin health ,education and economic indicators

On a legal / insurance level, when you have an accident you can be compensated for loss of earnings. You need to consider that taking time off work to look after the children is the same.

How you work it out within the family is your own affair, but I'm pointing out that your DP could be bringing in XX if he weren't looking after DC. It's the very reason why high earners are less likely to take time off work to SAH, they see it as a financial loss (taking a stall in professional development into account as well).

secret, there is nothing remotely smug about saying that you're doing your best for your family in your particular set of circumstances. As you say, I think most people would claim to be doing just that. But when combined with boasts about how well your dd is doing at school because of all the time that you have had to teach her, then I'm sorry, but it does sound smug.

I see. We've finished poking the kept wives now it's the benefit scroungers turn and carers of disabled partners and other types of family where both parents are unemployed but let's not let that stop anyone

I have to agree Honey. Sorry Mince, but pointing out how well your DD is doing on a thread about SAHM vs WOHM does come across as implying that that success is due to you staying at home. You must be aware of the guilt that's heaped on mothers who work in particular, guilt that I think is totally without merit. Adding to that by implying that a child might not do as well academically with a WOH mother is unnecessary I think.

Maybe I sound smug just for mentioning that my child is doing well - which you also did but I could have claimed that was due to my mum being able to care for her while I worked or a good nanny putting the time in with her - so it's nothing to do with the sahps debate whatsoever. I think everyone has accepted that one on one time with young kids as much as practical is a good thing.

Take the big ole cross off your back mince
It's v martyred