to be a sham even though I can't afford it?

[Picoo]

I would really like to stay at home with my DS I don't really enjoy my job and I would like to be a full time mummy. The thing is we could only just about afford it. We would have to pay interest only on our mortgage, give up insurance such as health and maybe house insuranc my husband would have to work longer hours, etc. We would be pretty poor, and we have zero savings, but at least I would be with DS.

Is it crazy to live a poor existence but be there for DS, or should I go back to work and be more financially secure?

Good for you daftdame. Personally I'd go completely mad not working as would DH. Similarly neither of us wants to work 50+ hours a week.

We are well matched because I am totally happy not working.

At the end of the day, that's what matters. If it works for you and your family, then it works.

Personally I'm with wishi though. Both DH and I prefer to work but neither of us want to do excessive hours.

... and I don't think anyone is trying to make you do anything differently daftdame. When it suits a couple for one to work and one not, when they can afford it and are happy with the situation, then what's the problem? Nothing! (though I would add to the above that it's always a good idea to have the capacity to be flexible and adaptable, because you never know what's round the corner..)

The problem on here has come from a couple of extremist posters who have decided that there is ONE RIGHT way to bring up children and that's with one parent (usually they mean the mother!) giving up work and staying at home full time. Which is quite simply nonsense. There are many ways to do things.

Like I've been saying all along, daftdame, we all do what works best for us. I agree that there are lots of different situations out there. My point was that you don't necessarily have to give up work if you don't want to just because your partner works long hours. If you do want to; also fine.

My only beef is with people who refuse to accept that anyone who does things differently to them might also be perfectly good, capable parents who will end up with happy, healthy, successful children.

wish I have other interests, cooking, painting, reading. I actually cannot wait to have some alone time after everyone has been together on holidays.

As l've already said earlier, I'm the higher earner so for my toddler to have a SAHP I would have to work f/t and my DH would stay at home. I would have to work very long hours and bring work home. We would just be able to scrape by financially i.e. pay the bills and nothing else. I fail to see how it is a 'no-brainer' to say my son would be better off in that situation where he would barely see his mother and we would be struggling to keep our heads above water than our current situation where I work p/t and DH does flexible hours so ds is looked after by non-stressed mummy, daddy, grandparents and loving childminder. It's such a weird stance to take.

jelly, I suspect those who say it is a no-brainer probably assume that it is the mum who should stay at home.

Like you, I'm the higher earner, and there was no way I was going to work silly hours and never see dd just so that DH could spend a few extra hours at home doing playdoh. That wouldn't have worked for our family at all!

Agree jellyandcake

Personally, I find it entirely normal and indeed natural that many couples want to create a balanced life style. When I look at my teenage dd and ds, they aren't fundamentally poles apart just because they're different genders. I can't imagine my dd is going to develop into an adult who assumes she will give up her career if she becomes a mum, and neither do I imagine my ds assuming he will be obliged to earn megabucks and never get much chance to be a hands on dad to any children he may have

I mean, fine if couples genuinely partner someone who wants different things out of life, and it suits them to take on different roles, but often people are attracted to someone with a similar outlook on life, so it doesnt surprise me in the least that many couples on here strive to create a balance in their lives.

janey this is where you begin to sound totally biased with this balance business.

My husband and I have balance, we are certainly intellectual equals. It is just that my skills are not as commercially viable but I definitely do my bit for the family.

We have common interests but I also am quite a solitary person just generally.

I also think its preferable to have both parents creating a balanced lifestyle and both they and the children benefit.
We work in areas where this is the norm. I don't know anyone who is a fulltime/lifelong SAHM ,most couples have worked to create a really good balance where the FAMILY as a whole benefit.

Quite the contrary, I've said several times that its up to each couple to do what works best for their own family. I am simply making the point that it shouldn't come as any surprise that many couples dont want to have polarised roles where one carries sole responsibility for earning and one doesn't work at all. That's all. I don't think there is a huge gulf in what many women and men want out of life . I have the same earning capacity and career capability as my DH, and he has the same capability in looking after children and running a home.
If other couples do things differently that's fine too.

Again Shitsinger preferable? Why do I bother explaining? Equality is about CHOICE. These biases make people feel bad and alone when the opposite thing is right and works better for them, as a family of course.

Interesting discussion and I'm nodding along to some bits although at 'a few hours playing play-doh' and similar.

I think it suits some posters to really put the boot in...

I'll summarise my views just to make the point that I'm an actual person, not some kind of poster girl for SAHM.

• I think nurseries are bad environments for under-3s
• I think that it is best for them to be with a parent who loves them
• Once they are in pre-school and beyond, I believe they are more resilient and have a strong loving grounding, if parents' work requires additional childcare beyond what parents and grandparents can provide.

It's not always as simple as both parents working less hours to spend time with DCs equally. I was the higher earner when I got pregnant - it's a total non-issue, DH and I are in agreement that it's best for babies and toddlers to be in heir own home for most of the day, looked after by loving parents. DH is ambitious, loves his work, I was happy to SAH so that's what we've done, DH's work couldn't be done in less hours, he'd have to move jobs so me being at home makes financial sense. That's our situation, but we both wish that we could split it more equally - I do really miss working and have maintained freelance contacts so as soon as possible I can start again.

Can I underline that this isn't about working mothers for me, it's about childcare arrangements. All the WOH mums on here are talking endlessly about how working is about balance, good for the family, providing a role model and so on, they enjoy work - my only issue is the care of the children, who IMO in the very early years should be cared for by their parents! If you can work around that premise then that's fantastic IMO, but it's really not such a huge sacrifice to spend the time with your teeny children is it?! They need you, so much when they are tiny.

... And once again, amazinggg, that's about your own beliefs about childcare. It doesn't mean that parents who don't hold your beliefs are doing anything wrong, or doing any harm to their children, or indeed giving them a life experience which is in any way diminished.

You might think that amazinggg but it doesnt mean people have to agree.

amazinnggg - you seem to be suffering from selective alexia, otherwise you would have seen the posts about children who are happy and do well in their childcare settings.

But Amazinggg, I was trying to point out that the sacrifice for me would be to see little of my son and be very stressed and miserable working but f/t ti facilitate DH staying at home environmentas we could not possibly manage on dh's salary alone - we couldn't cover mortgage and bills on it. I actually don't particularly enjoy working but I have to. We do our best in our circumstances. We picked a childminder for the two days we have to cover so he could have a home environment. Everyone does their best and everyone makes sacrifices. I could not make the sacrifice of working f/t and we couldn't provide a home for our son if I didn't work at all.

But amazing, my dd spent four hours a day with a nanny in our home, playing with one other child who she loved, doing activities that she enjoyed that DH and I might have tended to avoid (yes, including playdoh). The manny loved her enough to want to do a 600mile round trip to see her at her own expense, several times a year, more than four years after the professional relationship came to an end. DD acquired an additional language through her time with the nanny, and had lots of opportunities to play in ways that DH and I might not have thought of. The rest of the time, she was cared for by her parents (ie for 20 hours a day on weekdays and 24 hours a day at weekends).

Please tell me how you think she suffered as a result of this arrangement?

working f/t to facilitate DH staying at home as we could not manage on his salary alone

amazinggg I don't understand why you are the parent at home if you were the higher earner???

If your dh became the SAHP and you worked full time (after you had had a full year mat leave to deal with the breastfeeding thing) then your children would have a parent at home (as they do now) and more money and security.

Surely a parent and more money is better than just a parent?

Or is the point that you wanted to SAH and your dh wanted to work so you made a decision that was best for your family even though technically it is not best for your children?

flowery Sun 23-Jun-13 19:43:39

Any chance of an answer to my question of 18:59:16 Amazingg ?

I'm assuming that's a "no", then? Don't like that question? Sorry but you can't expect to say things like that, which basically amount to accusing the posters in question of lying, and not expect to get challenged on it.

But mummytokatie, what is best for the children is usually the same as what's best for the family though, surely? I would imagine that children do better when being brought up by happy and fulfilled parents.

Sorry flowery what was the question?

josie, I think that was mummytokatie's point.

flowery, what was your question of 18:59?

With regard to me earning more than DH - it wasn't a financial decision, obviously we'd be better off if I went back to work. We discussed it in depth, a lot, and I wanted to do it more than he did, so I'm the sahp.

Again I want to underline that I'm only so hard line about toddlers, not school aged kids.