To ask for one, simple, summary about all the angry SAHM threads.

[catinboots]

Pleaseeee??

I haven't read them all - but there seem to be lots of SAHMs on here today, moaning that they won't eat help with child are costs.

Eh?

Have I missed some key piece of information? Have a got it wrong?

Surely the whole point of being a SAHP is so that you don't need childcare?..

Why would the government say SAHMs make a contribution to society? They are not paying anything into the pot yet taking out in the form of education, healthcare, benefits for many. If you are implying that its only SAHMs who volunteer, bar one retired grandparent all of our school volunteers, pta and governors work.

"Fair enough subsidise childcare for those who need to put bread and butter on the table, not those choosing to work to pay for privilage and luxuries."

Double standards at play again, so its ok to expect those tax payers to pay your tax credits that allow you the luxury of choosing not to work but heaven forbid they get a tax break for contributing to the pot. We need tax payers far more and less taking from the pot so helping workers is the way to go.

I don't think that sahp contribute more than wohp. But we do contribute, if only in that we enable our partners to work and contribute financially to the tax pot. Not all jobs lend themselves to the use of paid childcare. Even with two people working, there often isn't enough money to pay for childcare when it is needed. Not everyone's homes/circumstances are suitable for hiring a nanny.

There are lots of people who don't directly generate money who contribute to society by doing all the caring and volunteer roles that would otherwise cost society money, if they suddenly had to pay people to do these things. I exclude myself from that, because I am a self confessed lazy cow (although I do help out at dd's school), but the women around me do quite a lot in the community to keep things ticking along.

You're not interested in debate weewifey- you just want to bang on about mummy at home being best. Fine to do that if it's what makes YOU happy, not fine to try to use it as a stick to beat WOHM with.

"Lose the argument"? Grow up.

Have you actually linked any of the evidence yet?

You appear to have confused 'making a contribution to society' with 'currently paying income tax', HappyMummy.

I've just spotted the post calling me a 'silly cunt'. A cunt! Because I was doing what? Arguing the case for sahm's? Arguing that children might just possibly prefer a sahm to a nursery key worker? If saying that makes me a cunt, then great. Call me a cunt. Wohm's peddle the opposite argument ad Infinitum on here. I'm redressing the balance.

Janey- I've got two daughters and a son and I agree with you. I guess I was relating this to how I feel about things as a woman now and how things might be in the future. I hope all three of them will be lucky enough to form strong relationships unless they genuinely don't want to and to have mature discussions about how to support themselves and any children they might have. I would wish for them what I have.

On a separate note, can I distance myself from the value judgements that are creeping in from either side about whether both wohp or one sahp is better, please? It's just not how I operate and find it all very uncomfortable. This is a discussion about financial matters once that decision, temporary or otherwise has been made.

so much hypocrisy and double standards here. Why am I completely unsurprised?

Totally agree with cat and Janey.

There are lots of dual income families taking more out of the pot than they are putting in, in terms of education, healthcare, benefits, because wages in this country are far too low and cost of living is far too high. Otoh, there are plenty of single earners paying more than their particular family takes out. It's just the way it goes. We accept that there are things we pay for which we might never use and that other people may subsidise things which we do end up using.

We all take some things and give back others - few people do absolutely nothing, ever to contribute. It's dangerous to go down the route of saying that only wage earners have any value to society and anyone else is valueless, which is where this govt seems to be going.

Wee wifey- you are clearly here to just stir up trouble. You talk as if you're in the playground, and it's difficult to have any kind of dialogue with someone who doesnt know the difference between subjective and objective- leave the debate to the grown ups please.

No one is arguing the case AGAINST SAHM are they? You've just decided to support your own choices by attacking others who aren't doing the same as you, how is that right?

As for my son preferring nursery workers - I'm sure he does on some occasions. I however, am delighted by that, he's happy without me when I can't be either him, what more could I as for? I don't feel so insecure as his Mother to disregard the thought that he could enjoy other people in his life without still loving or wanting me. Your post reads as if you couldn't say the same weewifey.

No need to be so condescending.
I didn't do anything wrong. I talked about the value of sahm's at a time when society seems to think we're 'a problem'
And yes, I do think my children are happier with a sahp, otherwise why would I be one??!
I was called a cunt twice on this thread.
And you tell me I'm acting as though I'm in a playground?
Hilarious!

Oh come on. Obviously I have more time to volunteer than a wohp - 2 whole days a week in fact (and 2 3 hour evening shifts too) and I am saving the school from employing another learning assistant (and yes, I do have a pgce) - thus alleviating the burden on the council financially. So yes I am contributing. I wouldn't expect a wohp to show the same level of commitment to volunteering - where would the work life balance be then?

This is not a competition. I feel marginalised on many levels for my choice (yes i acknowledge a bit of a chip/lack of self worth) and you seem determined to put the boot in by implying that the work some sahp do in society is not a valuable contribution. Yes, in the main it is not financial - but it can be. I am not denigrating wohp in the same way and it seems that some particular posters either have a massive chip on their shoulder, see being a sahp as derisory or are just being particularly ungenerous.

Does it really hurt that much to acknowledge that we sahp may have some societal value - it won't take anything away from your choices (which I respect - I have also been a wohp between my first 2 kids), honest.

I've worked and used nurseries, a childminder and holiday clubs, so have been the wohm for several years. Clearly the anonymity of the interweb means that I can't expect to be treated in a civil manner. If you met me in a cafe and had this conversation, would you call me a cunt?

weewifey
You only get to decide whats right for your own DC -Sorry but you have no right to tell other people what is right for theirDC .
I have not used childcare in any form but I completely support the rights of Mothers AND Fathers to choose what they think is best for their family.

Wee wifey- you just don't get it, do you?
Yes, you are happier being at home. No one is attacking you for your choice. But you're not content with that are you? You are only happy if you're attacking all the parents - sorry, MUMS, who do things differently to you. You posted to tell WOHM how bad nurseries are for OUR children. I'm not telling you what's best for your children so dont try
To tell us what's right for ours. It just makes you come across as somehow strangely wanting the children of WOHM to be less successful and happy than your kids. If that's the case, you stand to be disappointed!

Wee wifey, please don't assume that the sahm on this thread are incapable of debating sahp v wohm. I find it rather patronising that, fairly late into the debate, you have taken it upon yourself to do this. I am capable of joining in the debate without your "help". You don't speak for me, I don't agree with you and you are being treated aggressively because you've massively missed the point and put people's backs up. Ill advised as I think you would be to do this, please start a new thread if you want to rehash a very worn debate. I won't be joining you.

Catinboots has summed you up pretty well actually weewifey

Well done for being such a wonderful parent.

My daughter goes to nursery full time as myself and my partner work, I'm happy with my decision and I know she Is happy there all week, probably more than she would be at home with me all week because she gets to do messy painting, cooking etc that honestly, I know I wouldn't do with her everyday.

But you go ahead and feel sorry for her anyway

Pants- got het up there. I guess I am incapable of debating it actually-what debate is to be had when it's a family by family decision. Pointless.

Happymummy

I have told you numerous times that I don't receive any benefits other than cb and everybody used to get this, so hardly something that others don't get.
My dh has tax credits, but gives them to me along with his wages for me to manage for for household.
The tax credit amounts to very little, not really a wage. What is strange though how many parents are capable of managing on one minimum wage, plus very small top up, paying a mortgage, household bills, activities for their dc, a family holiday, family car, pension investment. What must others be spending the extra salary on? You even get to pay mortgage off by 40 if you are very careful, oh and not materialistic.

I didn't attack anyone. There are innumerable comments in this thread from wohm's, comments such as 'setting daughters a good example' and that's deemed ok. Apparently it's not ok to suggest that kids are better off being looked after by their parents, unless the parents are being abusive in some way. Why, because this contradicts your world view? And why, if this isn't ok, is it alright for wohm's to repeatedly offer the contradictory viewpoint? Can't you see the hypocrisy?

Partridge- you say it's not a competition, but then go on to measure all your contributions and claim its more than a WOHP! Don't you see the irony?
I think it's ridiculous to make sweeping generalisations. Clearly you are a conscientious person who does a lot. But don't kid yourself that all SAHP are pillars of the community and volunteering left right and centre.
Just as an anecdote, (and yes I know an anecdote does not equal evidence) but my SIL is a teacher and has commented that in her school, most of the PTA, volunteers etc are working parents, whereas there's a culture of it being quite hard to rally a lot of the SAHM.
I still think there is a body of people on here who want SAHP to be given a recognition over and above everyone else, which is odd. If we're going to value people for volunteering , being community minded etc then fine, but that's got nothing to do with being a SAHP per se. You get people who don't work and Contribute nothing to their community, and busy people who work AND do masses of stuff aside from it too

So weewifey you have used childcare - are you struggling with that decision/angry because you didnt have a choice?
Well a lot of parents sometimes feel like that but reconcile it with doing the best they can with the resources/situation they find themselves in.

Where the bloody hell did this pressure to be so perfect as a parent come from and more importantly do men feel the same pressure ??