To think that it's ok to want to bring up your children and to be a mother, just as it's ok to go out to work instead?

[bronya]

I was brought up to 'have a career' and to think about work not babies. I admit I'd be bored doing nothing, and love the tutoring that I do - but I have no wish at ALL to be the main wage earner and leave the childcare to someone else. When my DS was born, it felt like I was complete. I'm happier, have more self esteem and confidence than I've ever had. I've met many other mums who feel similarly. Surely, our choice is just as valid as those who are WOHM? The point of feminism was that we should have that choice - whichever one we choose is our decision, surely?

2x10k

so you have two people working FT in low paid jobs? or PT in higher jobs?

Either?

If you had somebody on 20 even and 1 on 10 part time surely the state will be paying more for the part time (in childcare help)to work than getting back in the very little tax both will be paying.Surely helping them to have a temp sahp(never going to happen but in theory) wouldn't cost more?

1. the 2x10K FT household. both people work FT for 10k per year. they cannot contribute more to the state than they do.

2. the 2x10K PT household. I expect very few household fit this criteria. not enough for the govt to care about. plus they probably don't use paid for childcare.

3. its useful to the rest of us to keep both parents working. 2 people working makes the household more robust in terms of relationship breakdown, redundancy. etc.

I don't actually care about the government's coffers. Well I do, but that's not why I argue that for most people being out of the workplace long term is a bad idea.

It is very hard to get back into good, paid employment after an extended period away. There are ways of keeping one's hand in and develop transferable skills - and possibly a period of SAHP is a great opportunity to do this if you're fortunate enough to have the financial means to do so. It takes careful thought though, imo.

Bear in mind too that children become more and more expensive the older they get. They also need you and only you to be available at irregular times and in ways they simply don't when they're younger. Both these are far more easily addressed if your career is well established than if you're trying to reenter the workplace from the bottom.

YouAre's point 3 is a very good one. Relying on one income alone is very risky. As well as relationship breakdown and redundancy I'd add illness (or worse - although I doubt many of us - me included- give that much thought).

But if you work as a team it is perfectly possible to accommodate that and quite frankly the gov should be doing more to help whoever is the sah to get back into the workplace eg childcare for top up training and work experience,longer parental leave,flexi hours,and laws re discrimination.

The sharing of parental leave is a great start.

The fact is many kids and families need and want a sahp,they are valuable and more should be done to help more families have.They should be valued instead of scorned.

Being a sahp is temporary too.

Retropear I agree re the government and it is basically because they have a very narrow view of gender equality.

'Relying on one income alone is very risky.'

How is it any riskier than taking out a mortgage/lifestyle that requires both incomes? few people are entirely independent that they could maintain the same lifestyle if they split. Those needing a dual income would be just as screwed if they split as somebody who have managed on one wage between them all.

'Bear in mind too that children become more and more expensive the older they get. They also need you and only you to be available at irregular times and in ways they simply don't when they're younger'

This is definitely true about the expense (I have 2 teens and 2 not far off). However I feel this age need a parent at home very often even more. It would be hard to keep them from going off the rails if parents aren't around after school etc.

And yes re mortgage ours is based on one income not two.

How is it any riskier than taking out a mortgage/lifestyle that requires both incomes?

either type of household can spend money badly. not save for a rainy day. on average a two income HH will have a great income than a single income one so be more able to save.

two people working does not by definition mean more materialistic any more than one person working means lazy.

I assumed risk to mean if the worker was made redundant or if there was a split.

so one person working = less opportunity to save and greater dependency on that single job.

two people = greater chance of saving and HH less affected by los of one job

I can't believe that not having a parent around straight after school means children will go off the rails. For some, yes, but I imagine one or two with the benefit of full-time mother at home still manage to do this.
Why is there not more talk about having two parents at home (ie both working part-time) surely this is a much better arrangement than one SAHM, so child gets benefit of both role models?

I can't believe that not having a parent around straight after school means children will go off the rails. For some, yes, but I imagine one or two with the benefit of full-time mother at home still manage to do this.
Why is there not more talk about having two parents at home (ie both working part-time) surely this is a much better arrangement than one SAHM, so child gets benefit of both role models?

Good grief don't know what has gone wrong with my phone.
Sorry
(Bet it does it again)

I think it really depends on income overall. DH earns more now on his own than we used to earn together. In addition we save on work and car costs etc as only have one car. So there can be savings as a SAHP. Many people can't afford to save these days whether dual income or not.

If you have taken a mortgage out based on two salaries I don't see how you are better off with 2x working families.In actual fact it is riskier as you will always need two salaries.If you base it on one salary you have more scope for coping with a disaster.

Many 2x wp don't have pots of surplus cash lying around in order to save.If they do I don't get the need for childcare help.

'Why is there not more talk about having two parents at home (ie both working part-time) surely this is a much better arrangement than one SAHM, so child gets benefit of both role models?'

In many cases jobs cannot be done part time nor can be worked around (army, police, etc). In some families a SAHP is the best option.

Also SAHP can be great role models; volunteering, prioritizing lots of time with kids etc . In addition many SAHP do work either before or later on after DC as well as other family members/teachers offering role models as WOHMs.

'If you base it on one salary you have more scope for coping with a disaster'

Exactly.

'If you base it on one salary you have more scope for coping with a disaster'

I agree but its better to have two incomes and a low mortgage than one income and a low mortgage.

Depends on the ratios.

Personally I suspect an awful lot more families with 2x wp are living beyond their means re mortgages- hence the whining for help with childcare.