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

[Mingnion]

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?

Also I have to agree with redsky - my mum was also a SAHM. It certainly didn't maker her happy even if it may have made life easier for the rest of us .

why is it only when women work that what children want is interpreted to contain some truth about How Things Should Be?

What a good point, Youaremyfavourite

Firstly, I'm very sorry to hear about your loss and I expect it's very good for your children to have you there all the time, for now, given what they and you have been through.

Whilst I completely see your viewpoint about wanting to be there for your children when they're so young, the bit I'm struggling with is that the benefits you say you're on are funded by me - and anyone else who is working, through our taxes.

If you were making this choice based on the fact that you had saved enough money to stay at home with the children or were solely relying on your OHs life insurance, I'd absolutely support you to make the choice that feels right for you.

However, it does get to me a bit that I'm working daytimes, evenings and part of each w/e and so am not able to be there for my DCs as much as I'd like to be (I'm a single mum), paying tax to fund those who proactively choose to stay at home and not work.

I can see benefits as a necessary stop gap for those in crisis or those who simply can't work because of disability/ ill health but if you're able bodied, then it just 'feels' inherently wrong that from what I earn, the government then takes away a chunk of this to fund those who choose not to work.

I never understand why people say they have to work for financial reasons - the cost of child care would always exceed what I could earn.

Simple babababa - some of us are lucky enough to have free child care from family members and/or friends in similar situations. Or have jobs where we earn enough that we can easily cover the cost of child care.

Surely it's not that hard to understand?

I have had lots of different jobs in my childrens lifetime but only ever ones where my children are always with me. Schools, clubs, nurseries, creches etc. Then your paid for looking after your own.

Most children don't give a stuff about the work ethic, I agree. But most children don't care about brushing their teeth, going to school and eating veg. Generally we as adults decide what is best for them and come to some sort of compromise between what is best for them and the rest of the family, and what everyone actually wants.

If you don't want to go to work don't. I don't have a problem with people claiming benefits that they feel they need, especially if it's just for a finite period. I, and many other parents, don't choose to do so. Please don't make sweeping, dramatic statements to justify a choice that you don't need to justify

But annie then you never escape!

Some kids thrive in childcare - I know mine would have hated it. I think you are doing what is best for you and your children now. Dont do what I did and stay out of employment for too long as you will get to a point where you need more yourself and the children will not need you as much.

I dont have any time for the smal/very vocal brigade on here who look down on people who are not career driven and I do totally understand that for some people not working is just not financially viable with mortgages and living costs being so high now. I guess its the difference between being a work to live or live to work kind of person.

Its not said (as it doesnt agree with the governments drive to get both parents working and paying tax) but I believe putting children who are not equipped to deal with childcare in early and for long hours may be a contributing factor in the rise of childhood depression.

Im not saying that as a cricism of anyones parenting choice but as a concern I have about the way the expected norm within our society is impacting upon the wellbeing of children in general.

telegraph article here

Well if we just strip it back to what children want, this is what my eldest would prefer:

Not to go to school but stay at home playing on the ipad.

His father to take him to school on a day he deigns to go instead of going to work.

Eat sweets instead of lunch.

Ride his scooter in the supermarket.

Obviously we don't let him do those things for various reasons because we are his parents and we have to look at the big picture and weigh up the pros and cons. To reduce things back to "what children want is best" is nonsense.

FWIW my mother was a SAHM, and while I guess it was nice having someone to come home to and be there when I needed her, most of the time she was busy donig stuff around the house and I was entertaining myself. I have nothing to compare it with of course so I might have hated it if she worked. But I will say that my mum was disatisfied, bored and resentful that her life was so circumscribed. Even now at 82 she spends hours repeating stories about her brief working life that ended nearly 60 years ago when she married my dad.

YANBU - it is what children would (generally) prefer

YABU - it is not always an option

Bluesky:

"Some kids thrive in childcare - I know mine would have hated it."

I agree; my children thrived but there are those who wouldn't, and don't. Just as we are all different, so are our children.

If my children had been genuinely upset at not having a SAHP then I would have re-evaluated the situation at that time, but they were happy so it was a non problem.

I am happy with my choices, proud of how my boys are turning out and have no regrets - as I'm sure every other parent on this thread is (SAHP/WOHP). Just because I chose to do things a certain way, does not mean that someone else who did things differently is in any way wrong.

Even now at 82 she spends hours repeating stories about her brief working life that ended nearly 60 years ago when she married my dad.

orm, that makes me feel very sad for her.

Despite OP's attempts to provoke, there's a majority consensus on the thread that most people do their best in the circumstances they're in, and we can't really go around judging other's decisions. What more can anyone say than that?

I find the introvert/extrovert point interesting, and would add to that - maybe sometimes there's value in being pushed outside your comfort zone. My mother is a pretty classic introvert, and was mostly a SAHM with some periods of pt WOHM. She didn't like it, but I think it was healthy for her. She ultimately started her own business which involves dealing with people on her own terms and she adores it, and the short and difficult times she spent WOHM helped her towards it.

Conversely, someone who is very work-driven might benefit from periods away from it, either SAHM or doing something else. That person might find it difficult and might embrace work with relief, but it doesn't mean that nothing was learnt/gained by the time out.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is protecting your right to work part time.

I'm currently on maternity leave with ds (as have dd aged 3). When I do deign to work I get to do it 3 days a week. The reason is because I have worked for my employer since 2001 so they were willing to accept part time to keep me. When ds starts school I will continue to do part time (but maybe one full day and 4 mornings) and gradually increase as the kids get older.

It would be very difficult to get a professional part time role straight from a career break so you have to choose between no job, a job that may be below your skill set or a full time job. And I don't fancy any of them when ds is 4!

*Simple babababa - some of us are lucky enough to have free child care from family members and/or friends in similar situations. Or have jobs where we earn enough that we can easily cover the cost of child care.

Surely it's not that hard to understand?*

Ah, I hadn't even considered that people might not need to pay for childcare. I was on £23,000 and most definitely didn't earn enough to cover childcare. I suppose if I earned more, then I could. Was a genuine question, as I'm beginning to wonder if I'd like to work part time.

Depending on how many children you have, £23k would cover childcare. I pay about £350 a month for one 3 year old.

I'm afraid I'm with blogonthetyne on this I can see benefits as a necessary stop gap for those in crisis or those who simply can't work because of disability/ ill health but if you're able bodied, then it just 'feels' inherently wrong that from what I earn, the government then takes away a chunk of this to fund those who choose not to work.

If you could fund your lifestyle choice then good for you - I had periods as a SAHM because I could afford to - but I also made sure I kept my skills up and worked p/t to keep my CV active. If my exH had died we had life insurance that would have tided me and the DCs over for a few years. I now have life insurance to make sure my DCs could stay in the family home should I die. I work f/t but am eating into retirement savings to help my DC through Uni, and periods of unemployment (so they don't go on benefits) my choice. But it seems I'm also funding your choices. I'm happy to fund people who have no choices, who are unable to work - that is the point of the benefits system, we have a moral duty to help those who are unable to help themselves - but IMO you are actually being unethical in making the choice you have.

I don't think there's much point in trying to extrapolate what's best for all DC.

Each family has its own dynamic.

And many people really don't have a choice. Many have to work. Many would love to work but can't afford or find decent childcare.

I'm a single parent and I couldn't afford to not work and live on benefits. Working makes more sense for me financially as I have debts. I do get top up benefits of housing and tax credits.

On the introvert/extrovert subject, I am an extrovert - I am on best form in the company of others and enjoy the social aspect of working. But, I'm actually really, really shy around people I don't know - in a work situation I have to talk to people I don't really know so am more or less forced into it.

People who have seen me/know me would not have a clue how I feel, they all think I am a big character (only my husband knows the truth, how I get physically sick with dread before going on a course etc).

If I had been a SAHM I believe I would have become quite reclusive, because unless I am forced into a position where I have no choice but to speak to people I don't know, I won't (the though of turning up at mother and toddler groups or initiating play dates horrified me).

My children are extroverts, and popular in their peer groups (as are my husband, and myself), but I do wonder if I had been a SAHP and been the recluse that I can imagine I would have been - would my children have turned out differently? Probably.

Sorry for the slight derail, but a couple of previous posters mentioning their own mums not being entirely happy with being a SAHP made me think of it.

Monica - I agree totally with Tantrum But it doesn't matter what i do. It only matters what you do. And we don't all have to agree. But picking holes in people's choices doesn't make your choice any better.

I think it is a shame that some SAHP look down on people who work and some WOHP look down on people who are not career driven. There is no one size fits all way of bringing up children, it often amazes me that supposedly intelligent people do not realise this - some children are active and sociable and will thrive being in a group of non family members for the majority of the day, others (like mine) are quieter, sensitive and more insular and would struggle massively with that scenario. I suspect the children suffering from depression would fall within the second category.

It is a shame that there is so little part time work about and that full time hours are becoming longer and longer as I would love to do something more constructive with my day - I have no family back up for child care and once I factored in the costs of that, plus clothes for work, petrol and vehicle costs I would literally bring hardly any profit home.

If I had a career that I loved then I agree I would have struggled to walk away from it - unfortunately I had a job that bored me and I tolerated and dont get me wrong I love to work, I love to be challenged, I loved getting paid

So what I am teaching, as a SAHP of older children, is that they need to work as hard as they can at school to give them more career options when they leave (I went to a bad school and had parents who believed "girls careers arent important") I suspect, had I not had children later in life, I would have retrained for a new career and resumed work once both were in secondary.

Depending on how many children you have, £23k would cover childcare. I pay about £350 a month for one 3 year old.

I have three, it won't cover it, trust me.

I'm not bitter that I can't afford childcare (for the record, my dh works, no benefits here), was just genuinely wondering why people say they have to work for the money, when I know I wouldn't break even. I know tax credits help in some situations.

My mother was a miserable, miserable SAHM. And then went into a field of work because it was 'child friendly' but which also made her miserable.

I was terrified of having my own children because I didn't want to give up the stuff that interested me and become as miserable as her.

Fortunately I made the decision to 'stuff my children in childcare' and retain some level of sanity and happiness.

That's my point bababababoom - the cost of childcare might exceed what you earn, given your wage and number of children, but it won't be the same for everyone.