Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think children don't really care about 'work ethics' and would prefer to have a SAHP?

607 replies

Mingnion · 20/11/2013 23:13

Well aware I'm probably going to get mightily flamed for this but here goes...

I have a 6.5 year old and an 18 month old. My husband that supported us sadly died last year and I plan to stay at home and on benefits until my youngest is at school. I have a degree from Cambridge and will put in what I take out a hundred times over in the future no doubt. We do not have a lavish lifestyle but my children are adequately fed, dressed and are very happy which is more important IMO. Six months ago I found a part-time job and the impact on my children was massive. They were miserable at having to go to nursery and after school clubs and I was miserable as I missed them. Now they are inexplicably happy. I know it is a common opinion that single parents must work so as to teach their children about work ethics but realistically, do you really think children will care? I'd say most children would much rather have a SAHP and in retrospect I'd have preferred my mum to have been home so her work ethics obviously didn't rub off on me. AIBU to think this way and plan to stay at home with my children until my youngest is school age?

OP posts:
candycoatedwaterdrops · 21/11/2013 16:57

Generally, commenting on other people's parenting in such a derogatory way says a lot about how someone feels about their own parenting.

No one here knows what are the factors that make most children happy! You could have a wonderful SAHM who is the most perfect mother but the child is being bullied at school and thus, very unhappy. Your child could absolutely adore their childminder but hates their new baby brother, so is very unhappy. Where mummy is at home FT or not is only ONE factor in a child's life and preferences.

bibliomania · 21/11/2013 16:57

But people aren't saying that, Retro. Most people have said her decision is understandable in her circumstances: a few people have issued warnings that it may be harder to get back into work than she says. Most of those objecting to her posts are objecting to her generalisation that being a SAHP is the One True Way for all families.

janey68 · 21/11/2013 16:58

Link please retro to where I've ever said that other parents should work, and that it's best for their children ?

Thought not Grin

YoucancallmeQueenBee · 21/11/2013 17:00

It isn't better or worse Retropear - it is her choice. That's fine with me but just don't start saying that all children will be better with a SAHM.

mumofbeautys · 21/11/2013 17:00

retro no one really stated she was unreasonable for wanting to stay at home .. it was her being judgemental and patronising to people that they thought she was being unreasonable.

as I wrote earlier when I asked about quitting my job and relying on benefits I got lovely comments and ppl saying they wouldn't mind their tax going to families like mine and I do question how it is fair for some and not others.
and why do some mums have the right to be stahm and others don't.

JoinYourPlayfellows · 21/11/2013 17:01

"OP you're a single mother scrounging off the state."

No, she isn't, come on.

I agree that her superior attitude is annoying and misplaced, but please don't get into this "scrounger" bullshit.

She can only claim benefits if she is entitled to them.

And if she is entitled to them they are a part of our incredibly precious (and endangered) welfare state.

If a recently widowed mother thinks it's best for her children that she stay off work because they seem to need her at home, then it is wonderful that we live in a country where that is something that we support.

It is NOT scrounging to think that children who recently lost their father could do with having their mother there when they get home from school.

I disagree with her about what she says ALL children want, but I don't think anybody is in a position to disagree with her opinions on what her own children NEED from her.

Retropear · 21/11/2013 17:02

So are people having children they can't afford,claiming benefits and working scroungers?Are people who mucked about at school and didn't get the qualifications they could have thus relying on TC help scroungers?

"You are a single parent scrounging off the state."

Shock

Just wow.

Should I ever need benefits,the ops situation is right up there as regards a situation I'd turn to them.

Oh and re her thinking she'll walk into a job well sorry where there is a will there is a way.It may not be a top high flying job but maybe she doesn't care having different priorities.

Retropear · 21/11/2013 17:03

Why not youcan?

My dc were 100% better off with a sahp,many are.

ProfPlumSpeaking · 21/11/2013 17:04

I think the OP's timeline is:

15 - 18yo some time homeless
18-20yo has a job to support doing her "A" levels
21-23 studies political Science at Cambridge.

At 22, whilst in final year gets PG with 19 year old boyfriend (? a first year) not realising she is fertile. Then at about 24 she gets a job - no mean feat with no post graduate experience, a baby at home and a DH who is still a student probably. At 26 she gets PG with DC2. At 27 gives birth to DC2. She has given up work by now as she talks about the DH who supported them (having now got his degree, I guess). At 27.5 she is widowed suddenly and unexpectedly without life insurance and without a job. Tries working part time but hates it.

Gosh, some people have lots of bad luck (homelessness, unplanned PG, 25 yo husband dying suddenly and unexpectedly). I am not surprised the OP wants to hunker down for a bit with her DC and feels the need to validate this choice on MN.

LambChopsRarePlease · 21/11/2013 17:05

YANBU.

I cannot think that any child actively prefers their parents being at work so they can be with somebody else/in nursery.
I am saying this as a working mother in a professional job.
I know my children would prefer me to be at home.

But their needs are not the only needs to be considered.

You sound happy in your choices - surely that is what is important??

This.

janey68 · 21/11/2013 17:05

A lot of us have actually said in her circumstances, with her children having suffered a trauma already and being unable to settle in childcare, it is actually reasonable for the OP to not work for a while.

Where she goes badly wrong is in claiming that its best for all children to have a SAHP.

Though tbh reading through her bizarre posts, alongside the other recent threads she's started on topics , I really don't think this is genuine.
Probably someone bored, frustrated, unhappy with their life, taking a cheap shot at others.

Retropear · 21/11/2013 17:05

Janey there are far too many sahp threads you've commented on for me to scroll through and check.Wink

mumofbeautys · 21/11/2013 17:06

would they have been better off if you couldn't afford to feed and home them ?

since when has working been only about work ethic instead of actual surviving ? some thing has gone horribly wrong in this country.

monicalewinski · 21/11/2013 17:07

Retro, if anyone has said she should go to work, it has literally been a couple of posters.

The vast majority of replies have been sympathetic to her situation and said she isn't unreasonable to want to be SAHP.

It was just the assumption that all children with working parents suffer, which is wrong, that was objected to.

mumofbeautys · 21/11/2013 17:08

oh janey what other thread ? lol of too search now
and I feel like we seem to always end up in the same place janey.

janey68 · 21/11/2013 17:09

Ah yes of course retro. Always a good response when you know you've deliberately misquoted someone!

LEMisafucker · 21/11/2013 17:11

Op you don't have to justify your decision to anyone. When the time is right you will pick ip your career, right now your children need you at home. What anyone else thinks doesn't matter a stuff. There but for the grace of god.

mumofbeautys · 21/11/2013 17:15

if it helps my manager said when I am ready to return back to work I am always welcome at Tesco ... lol I think that's more reliable than the degree tbh :)

Chunderella · 21/11/2013 17:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MummyPigsFatTummy · 21/11/2013 17:25

Prof Plum - no argument with any of your post other than this bit: "feels the need to validate this choice on MN". Regardless of her circumstances, which are tragic, there is no need to come on MN to validate her (entirely understandable) choices by taking cheap shots at other people's.

mumofbeautys · 21/11/2013 17:27

why do people mind being outed ?

Chunderella · 21/11/2013 17:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

mumofbeautys · 21/11/2013 17:41

ahh yh I suppose , I was just wondering because I have heard it a few times and then there is me who would post anything as I don't mind. :)

SilverOldie · 21/11/2013 18:04

So, OP, because you have a degree from Cambridge you are entitled to benefits more than someone who does not have a degree?

I do not have a degree, it was rare for anyone to go on to university when I was young but I did work for over 40 years. However, you don't have any compunction about taking money from people for the next few years, many of whom may be on minimum wage but still pay taxes.

As for walking into a well paid job after your youngest is at school, you're living in dream cuckoo land. By that time there will be thousands of new graduates who will be given priority over you. You will be lucky to get ANY job.

Someone I know, who had an Oxbridge degree took a few years out of work to be a SAHM. When she decided to get back into the job market, she pretty much had to start from the bottom, not doing the work she wanted and her degree was virtually worthless.

mumandboys123 · 21/11/2013 18:06

so how long is it acceptable for her to sit on benefits for? I have my own story - not a nice one and I went through some difficult times - but at no point did I expect to be able to sit at home for a few years because life had gotten difficult. I made changes, I battled on, I did what I considered to be the best by my children and made sure they had a secure roof over their heads, food on the table and clothes on their backs. I didn't expect the welfare state to pay my rent but was grateful, of course, when it helped out. I don't hide behind the 'but I'm entitled' because we are all entitled to stop working and to a greater or lesser extent, we all know that the state will pick up the tab if we make that choice. Just because the state will pick up the tab doesn't make it right to let it.

What you don't do is pretend it's OK to look after your children when you are capable of working and have no reason not to be working (and however sad widowhood may be, it is not an excuse to not work in anything other than the short term) because you have a degree from a good university so you can, eventually, 'pay back' what you were given. The welfare state wasn't set up as a savings plan for bad times. It is fall back. The OP has a child of 18 months old....so we will support her for the next 3 1/2 years...any idea what that will run into from a cost point of view? Why should I support that lifestyle choice when it wasn't an option for me? And to be clear, I have a child under the age of 5 so am legally entitled to stay at home the whole time I have been a single parent.